Originally posted by Acrylic
No, I heard laughter too.

That is one of the best links ever.

Agreed. Some part of me just wanted to put him out of his misery at that point. :rolleyes:

that clip makes me feel embarrased. :(

Moved to the Senate, just in case.

The people will ellect whoever gives them what they want. The majority of the people seem to want to become more liberal. Bush is Christian, Kerry says he's Christian but his actions prove otherwise. Liberal America doesn't want to hear about morals, they want gay marriages and the continued choice to kill their children. Listening to Kerry, just made me lose even more respect for him.
"I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military"
Yeah, that's why you voted against aid for the military. His "plan" changes constantly with his stances. :rolleyes:

just because someone doesn't have the same beliefs as you doesn't make them less moral, or less justified in their reasoning, accept that people have different faiths and beliefs. John Kerry has said he's christian, and until he openly says he's not I can't question it. Many people do things that other christians say aren't christian, hell the whole catholicism, is it christianity debate has been discussed to hell.

John Kerry has voted for AND against military aid, but what the republicans don't want you to know is what the underlying issues of the bill were that made him vote no one time, and yes another. You see there are multiple parts to a bill, you either vote for it all, or against it all. What the Bush campaign won't tell you is what all was in the bill in it's entirity.

I'm neither pro-kerry or anti-bush. I'm pro-edwards.


and I'm tired of this slanderous "liberal" bull you republicans sling around.

Yes, because everyone against Bush is some sodomite, gay, hippy that just wants christian values thrown out ;)


PS: one reason I never take christianity seriously is becuase noone can tell me what exactly is christianity, because they're all fighting over who is.

is it the baptists? the lutherans? the catholics? the Episcopelians? the greek orthodox?

Originally posted by Jdome83
Kerry says he's Christian

Which should really be a reason to vote against him, except that his opponant is far more indoctrinated into that silly superstition.

Originally posted by Jdome83
"I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military"
Yeah, that's why you voted against aid for the military. His "plan" changes constantly with his stances. :rolleyes:

You should check your facts before simply buying into the fundamentalist-extremist line of BS. There seems to be precious little difference between Xian-fundamentalists and Muslim-fundamentalists. They each prefer to kill their enemy and whatever civilians get in the way and call it a crusade/holy war.

Kerry didn't vote against "aid for the military" so much as he did against the riders that came with the bill and the blank check it gave the executive branch. The vote against the recent $87 billion was to demand accountability of the funds. To suggest it was an attack of any kind on American servicemen is simply an ignorant statement.

Also ignorant is the criticism of the voting record of a member of Congress who is running for the office of President. Representatives and Senators are expected to reflect the desires of their constituents. The expectations of a President are somewhat different. That Kerry even has a voting record is significant and notable. Bush, by the way, doesn't. In fact, his political experience is nearly as capable as his public speaking ability. As a governor of Texas, he was merely a figurehead, since Texas is a state in which the Lt. Governor actually initiates policy and is active in legislature.

In the debate, I'd say that both sides had the factual problems that RP pointed out and both sides made some good points. I'd call it a draw in content and information. But it was clear that Kerry kicked Bush's butt in style and public speaking. Bush was clearly flustered on several occasions and obviously aggitated when his soundbites-for-applause lines couldn't get the same effect they would with an audience. This demonstrates the need he has for consistent ego massage. I still think Kerry sounds too much like a preacher, though.

CPT Wilson: You can get the debate transcript here, at this link (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html).

If I find a video link to the debate, I'll link it in this thread.

Skin, off topic, but do you have a list of non-Christian candidates for president?

While religion of the candidate really shouldn't be an issue period, IMHO, your statement makes it sound like you wouldn't trust any religious person with the presidency, period (since all religions are equally non-rational from a atheist's point of view). So why bring it up? Silly superstition indeed!

Bush's religion is a red herring (like JFK's was all those decades ago). The only reason anyone should care is that the so-called 'Religious Right' backs Bush. But they are called the 'Right' for a reason. They wouldn't back a left-leaning candidate in favor of a republican, would they?

Anyway, the reason any candidate makes an issue out of his religion (like any 'character' issue) is to pander to his audience (America is majority Christian). It's just like when a president kisses his wife or hugs his kids in front of the cameras (oh, he's a family man, he must be of strong moral character!).

Even if all Christians don't agree on everything (or virtually anything) the idea of something to identify people with the candidate is strong.

It's like if he likes baseball. You go, whoa, he likes baseball, he must be my man! You pick something a lot of people believe in and emphasize that characteristic. If he had some characteristic that most people hated, he'd downplay it.

But there's also the notion that being a believer in Christianity makes you a more moral person (which is not true, since there are plenty of examples of Christians who are not very moral I'm sorry to say).

I'm Catholic, but my being Catholic has no bearing on whether or not I'll vote for Kerry, and I judge Bush's performance by his actions, not his professed beliefs.
I'm not voting for "Christian of the Year" I'm voting for future President of the United States.

As to the debate, I watched it on the internet two days ago. I think Kerry gave a much better presentation. Bush was constantly on the defensive, repeating himself and generally looking weak and unprepared. Kerry dodged a few questions, but ultimately he looked like a better speaker who was more prepared. However, I still disagree with both men, and I realize that only a few specific issues were covered in this first debate (obviously issues relating to Bush's own performance in two key important areas, the Iraq war and national security). I'm sure Bush's handlers will better prepare him for the next few debates (if they care about him winning at all).

The thing is, the debates aren't open to third parties, they had those "Rules" put up for the media to follow (to avoid people seeing stuff like Bush Sr. looking at his watch during the debates with Clinton & Perot), and the debates are more like entertainment and how good a candidate looks on TV. It's supposed to be about the issues, but oh well.

Such is the nature of public debates. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them, but they could stand to be improved to give more substance.

I must admit, my post above was more in response to something I heard on the radio yesterday than to the quoted text. I'm an avid NPR listener (the only thing close to "fair and balanced") and the local station, KERA, aired some soundbites of local voters. One of them made the comment, "a vote for Bush is a vote for God."

Your point about a "non-christian" candidate is well-taken, since in our nation of christian majority such a candidate would have little chance. Be it a Muslim or an atheist. Even an agnostic. The so-called christian right would likely label the candidate an agent of the devil or some such. And I don't think I'm exaggerating.

I actually don't harbor discontent or malcontent toward christianity in general, and apologize for the "silly superstition" comment. That is my perspective on religion, but I realize, too, that others are very serious.

But I disagree that Bush's religion is a red-herring. I think Bush's religious influences are very much a reason for "not" voting for him. More than once he's alluded to the notion that he's doing "god's work" and has made religious comments about his foreign policy beliefs.

To sum up, Kerry is a candidate that is motivated by logic and reason, while Bush is one that is motivated by belief.

Perhaps a separate thread would be good for discussing Bush/Kerry in regard to religion?

Yes, because everyone against Bush is some sodomite, gay, hippy that just wants christian values thrown out
I don't think that. If I thought that I wouldn't even listen to John Kerry. In fact, most of my friends are Democrats. I'm saying that Kerry is trying to be a gay marriage and abortion supporting Christian, which is a contradiction.

Originally posted by Jdome83
I'm saying that Kerry is trying to be a gay marriage and abortion supporting Christian, which is a contradiction.

He could believe in letting people choose, but personally he opposes it. If he does feel that way, then he gets some kudos from me.

I'm saying that Kerry is trying to be a gay marriage and abortion supporting Christian, which is a contradiction.I think it's about time people like yourself started voting for political candidates based on their SECULAR beliefs, not their religious orientation. Bush is so steeped in religion that it's impossible to divine where his dogmatic sensibilities end and his political beliefs begin.

Religion should be UTTERLY separate from political office in a modern, civilised democratic state. Politics is (or should be) about law, economics and foreign policy and the like, and very little else. Classical morality (based on monotheistic claptrap) has no place in the management of a modern country.

Leave the religion to the religious leader of your choice, and elect an official to the office of prez whom you think will make your COUNTRY economically strong, just and respected around the world.

Originally posted by Spider AL
I think it's about time people like yourself started voting for political candidates based on their SECULAR beliefs, not their religious orientation. Bush is so steeped in religion that it's impossible to divine where his dogmatic sensibilities end and his political beliefs begin.

Religion should be UTTERLY separate from political office in a modern, civilised democratic state. Politics is (or should be) about law, economics and foreign policy and the like, and very little else. Classical morality (based on monotheistic claptrap) has no place in the management of a modern country.

Leave the religion to the religious leader of your choice, and elect an official to the office of prez whom you think will make your COUNTRY economically strong, just and respected around the world.

Personally, I feel that a President's first priority is to forego personal beliefs and do what he feels is right for the people, not that what he feels right the people should follow. In other words, I feel a president should let gay marriage pass, because even if they feel it is wrong, because he would know there is only something to gain for the American people.

1st of all: I support Kerry over Bush, I just like Kerry better, though I rooted for Bush in the last elections, he lost my trust.
2nd: Religion should not be an issue, he's christian, all right, so what if he supports gay marrige and abortion? I mean Christians fire people all the time, that doesn't mean they're hypocrites, are they?
3rd: You were wrong spelling the topic title, the correct form is: OMG! BUSH GOT 0WN3D!1!!!!!1111!!oneoneoneone K3RRY 1Z t3h L337

I feel a president should let gay marriage pass, because even if they feel it is wrong, because he would know there is only something to gain for the American people.Marriage is an idiotic religious institution. It should be totally abolished, not given to YET ANOTHER social group.

Having said that, I believe that religious people should be able to have any sort of ceremony they wish to consecrate their l0v3. *spit* I just don't think it should have any standing in law at all.

Thus, the idea of allowing homosexuals to marry in a CHRISTIAN fashion would be doubly silly, since Christianity does not recognise homosexuality as a valid life-partnership.

marriage is actually a sociological structure, religions just took it and bastardized it.

You can be against something but allow people to do it, it's called being a good person, turn the other cheek and all that.

marriage is actually a sociological structure, religions just took it and bastardized it.Nope. Marriage is the result of a religious consecration of a simple life-partnership arrangement. The fact that it still has legal standing is merely indicative of how behind the times our nations are.

You can be against something but allow people to do it, it's called being a good person, turn the other cheek and all that.Sounds very christian to me. ;)

What you're proposing is to allow christians to hold their own beliefs... but to allow homosexuals- who patently do not conform to christian doctrine- to dictate what christian belief should be. That sounds a little uncharitable to the christians as far as I'm concerned. It's their little club, if they don't want gay people to play with them, no pun intended, that's their call.

But religion should have no impact on secular law. That's really the last word.

Originally posted by Spider AL
But religion should have no impact on secular law. That's really the last word. There I agree - religion should have no impact on secular law, and secular law should have no impact on religion.

Which is why the courts getting involved in the Boy Scouts - which is a *christian* organization - was wrong and anti-constitutional.

If someone wants to form a 'First Church of We Hate White People' or whatever, or exclude men or women or minorities based on their religion, then it should not be the place of the federal government to intervene.

Mike

Speaking of Bush getting owned... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20041006/ts_washpost/a9790_2004oct5)

If someone wants to form a 'First Church of We Hate White People' or whateverHmm, hatred is a little too extreme to be excused by religious freedoms IMO. Christianity does not purport to hate homosexuals, that's why it's okay for them to exclude homosexuals based on their behaviour and therefore contravention of christian values.

But if christianity was the "first church of we hate gays" I might take a dimmer view of their standpoint.

Bush: We were attacked!

Kerry: We were attacked, but not by Saddam Hussein...

Bush: *cries*

Classic....

I saw some research somewhere that showed that people who watched that "Daily Show" (whatever that is) were better informed than people that watched serious shows, people that watched nothing and people that read the newspaper.

I'd guess it is something a little similar to Rory Bremner in the UK, as i'd expect that you'd find people who watch that are more well informed than people who watch the news or read our "independent" papers (all owned by the same guy who owns all YOUR stations and papers BTW...)

---------

I hear cheny did ok in his debate, which i find surprising as i thought edwards would be able to nail him into the ground,. He has been much more forthright in stating "speculative evidence" as fact, and only a day or two back said that there was NO LINK between al quaida nad saddam, having stated earlier as a FACT that there was. Talk about flip flopping.

That and the fact that HIS voting record is absolutely disgracefull. (Slightly to the right of hitler.) Can't see why edwards couldn't nail him, given the ammount of ammo out there.

Originally posted by toms
That and the fact that HIS voting record is absolutely disgracefull. (Slightly to the right of hitler.) Can't see why edwards couldn't nail him, given the ammount of ammo out there.

Could have been as simple as Edwards couldn't find a way of doing it without flat out saying it. Its always better to trap your opponent in his own web. Of course, it may have something complicated, such as Cheney being able to cover up his tracks with sly wordplay.

Originally posted by Kain
such as Cheney being able to cover up his tracks with sly wordplay.

Do you mean like "I, nazi, am" instead of "Me=Nazi"

I heard that some major polls put Edwards well ahead of Cheney in that debate... Is this not so?

Originally posted by Spider AL
I heard that some major polls put Edwards well ahead of Cheney in that debate... Is this not so? that be true.

yeah, i heard that last night as well. THe odd thing is that soon after the debate when i looked on google news the news was al indicating that, if anything, cheny won.

I'm not sure if that is because google ended up picking pro cheny sites, or because opinions changed over time....

Originally posted by toms
yeah, i heard that last night as well. THe odd thing is that soon after the debate when i looked on google news the news was al indicating that, if anything, cheny won.

I'm not sure if that is because google ended up picking pro cheny sites, or because opinions changed over time.... No - it was a matter of a single poll with ~175 people that indicated Edwards had 'won'. I don't see how any intelligent person could come to that conclusion - any more than anyone could argue that Kerry won last week. Your position on the issues (most here are liberals) aside, Edwards was style, Cheney was substance. Factually, they were both ... um ... lax ;)

Mike

I actually think the VP debate was a draw. They both had ups and downs to their arguments.

No - it was a matter of a single poll with ~175 people that indicated Edwards had 'won'. I don't see how any intelligent person could come to that conclusionHardly very mature to imply that those who hold a different opinion to yourself are not intelligent people, is it now?

As for that poll, it's rare to get a detailed poll that quickly in excess of those numbers. And most of the news stories I see online still say Edwards won.

- any more than anyone could argue that Kerry won last week. Your position on the issues (most here are liberals) aside, Edwards was style, Cheney was substance. Factually, they were both ... um ... lax Hmm, having read the transcript of the debate it seems very clear that Cheney was trying to defend an indefensable position, the lies about Saddam's links to Al-Qaida, the justifications for war and the amount of money the American public are having to pay for it now...

Frankly a teabag could have won against Cheney in such a position, and Edwards did indeed win logically, with Cheney throwing out bitchy insults more than valid rebuttals... But I could have done better in Edwards' place. ;)

Originally posted by Spider AL
Hardly very mature to imply that those who hold a different opinion to yourself are not intelligent people, is it now?
Poor phraseology on my part - I found the Veep debate much better and listenable than the Pres debate. Both men comported themselves better, and were much better spoken and informed than their leaders. What I was saying was not that Cheney won, but that it was a pretty even debate, and that the decision on who you thought 'won' was *likely* one of politics, not objective thought. Of course, thoughful people are always open to disagree ;)
Originally posted by Spider AL
Frankly a teabag could have won against Cheney in such a position, and Edwards did indeed win logically, with Cheney throwing out bitchy insults more than valid rebuttals... But I could have done better in Edwards' place. ;) I agree with the indefensible position Bush/Cheney have on several issues. Likewise, a wet paper bag could take Edwards apart on their record. One thing I like about Cheney is the fact that he is like a walking encyclopedia - he (like Edwards ... and Bush and Kerry) spout a lot of pre-rehearsed lines, but when Edwards gave one of those practiced 'we have a plan, we can do better' lines, Cheney was ready with a litany of what each has done in reality ...

Mike

http://www.boomspeed.com/insanesith/uh_oh_caughtinalie.jpg)
uh oh, looks like someone got pwn'd

clickage. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3590504&thesection=news&thesubsection=world&thesecondsubsection=)

At a town-hall style forum in the swing state of Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who provided safe harbour and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and a man who "provided safe harbour and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."

click 2 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/)

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that Iraq was harboring Abu Musab Zarqawi, a "collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," and he said Iraq's denials of ties to al Qaeda "are simply not credible."

In September, Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

click 3 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/index.html)


If I recall, Dick Cheney said "I never claimed there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

yeah hear it is.

click here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/debate.main/)

Edwards accused Cheney of falsely suggesting a link between Iraq and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Cheney denied doing so.

"The senator has got his facts wrong," Cheney said. "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror."

What I was saying was not that Cheney won, but that it was a pretty even debate, and that the decision on who you thought 'won' was *likely* one of politics, not objective thought. Of course, thoughful people are always open to disagree That's better... still implies that all the people on here who note that Edwards scored the most "points" during the debate are in some way not objective though. I personally consider myself hellishly objective, since I'm not from the US. :p

I agree with the indefensible position Bush/Cheney have on several issues. Likewise, a wet paper bag could take Edwards apart on their record.It seems that Cheney doesn't have the acumen of that wet paper bag then. Here's another nice little article (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100804F.shtml), listing the lies propounded during the foreign policy section of that debate. Cheney comes off worse, naturally, and most notably in the sections in which he attacks Kerry's "terrible record".

Cheney was ready with a litany of what each has done in reality ...A lot of that was just inflated, oversimplified nonsense you know.

Originally posted by Spider AL
I personally consider myself hellishly objective, since I'm not from the US. You're not serious, are you?!? I'm sorry, but the tone and content of your posts indicate quite clearly that you are a very liberal individual, as are SkinWalker, ETWarrior, InsaneSith and others. I don't think you are a US Democrat apologist, as are some (and there are plenty of Republican apologists here as well), but I think that citing 'truthout' as a reputable source - when it is about as balanced as Rush Limbaugh (but not as maniacal ;) ) - demonstrates that.

No offense intended - thinking people have strong views, and take sides. That doesn't tie them to political parties, but more to ideologies. I'm pretty obviously a conservative (I was a much taller and chubbier version of Alex P. Keaton in the early 80's ;) ), but am no member (or friend) to the Republican party.

Mike

Originally posted by Spider AL
Cheney comes off worse, naturally, and most notably in the sections in which he attacks Kerry's "terrible record". I'm from Massachusetts and have been voting for over 20 years ... so don't pretend to tell me about the history of John Kerry. He cannot hide behind the 'doing it for the constituency' thing, when he has consistently touted the same socialist agenda. And Cheney comes off worse because the site you cite is about as fair ad objective as one of those screeching right-wing radio shows ...
Originally posted by Spider AL
A lot of that was just inflated, oversimplified nonsense you know. That is true for both sides - which you would note if you were, in fact, objective. Did you notice the shot that Edwards took at Cheney's homosexual daughter ... and then the look on his face? You could see that he was doing a scripted line - probably from Carville or Begala - and that he didn't like having to do it.

It is a true shame that both sides are doing things that will further polarize the sides of this country - I hate seeing the Democrats actively promoting the class war and race war ... and the Republicans doing nothing through policy or rhetoric to help remove those problems.

Mike

As far as i can tell spider isn't what i would call liberal... not even close.
------------------------------
Edwards was style, Cheney was substance. Factually, they were both ... um ... lax

If cheney was factually lax, then how was he "substance"?

What you seem to be implying is that BOTH were style over substance, but edwards had a more "polished young eager" style, and cheney had his "down to earth experienced veteran" style.

But both are still just acts. As far as i can tell cheney is great at bringing out this style for elections, but in truth he is an extreme right wing fanatic.... so this amiable trustable old guy style is no more true than anyone else's.

And the fact that cheney could come out with a lot of real sounding facts, but then they all turn out to be untrue just goes to show this.

You're not serious, are you?!? I'm sorry, but the tone and content of your posts indicate quite clearly that you are a very liberal individual,nyeheh... shows what you know. :p

Listen to toms mate. I'm conservative enough to attract the ire of the trendy lefties on a regular basis. I'm hard-line enough to find it amusing that a fairly middle-of-the-road conservative like yourself would consider ME more liberal than you.

I think that citing 'truthout' as a reputable source - when it is about as balanced as Rush Limbaugh (but not as maniacal ) - demonstrates that.I didn't cite the article because of the political orientation of the website, I cited the article because it analyses the points and backs up its analysis with references to specific facts.

Something you're forgetting friend, is that there IS such a thing as fact. In my opinion Edwards "won" the debate, because his arguments were based more in fact than Cheney's, whose arguments were based mostly on nebulous nonspecific insults.

I'm from Massachusetts and have been voting for over 20 years ... so don't pretend to tell me about the history of John Kerry. I wouldn't presume to tell you about the history of John Kerry... what I CAN AND WILL presume to do is to tell you about the references to Kerry's record made by Cheney in the debate, most of which were petty, blanket statements based less in fact than Star Wars was. They were mostly pure propaganda.

Fine, you don't like Kerry, but that doesn't make the accusations of Cheney any more accurate. Since you have experience of Kerry you could probably have scripted some BETTER anti-Kerry rhetoric, based more in fact... but we're analysing the debate based on Cheney's ACTUAL, dismal performance. Not on the performance you or any more intelligent conservative might have given in his place. ;)

It appears that Bush lost the first, and now the second, debate even though he was wearing a wire. Undoubtedly, he was wearing body armor, but that doesn't explain the small, squar bulge between the shoulder blades.

This is the location used to mount a receiver known as a "body pack" by law enforcement personnel who put them on confidential informants.

Another example of Bush & co. doing whatever it takes to win, even being dishonorable thugs.

As a side, but related, note, there have also been numerous instances where people have been asked to leave public events where Bush was speaking because of John Kerry paraphenalia being spotted (T-shirts, buttons, even a small sticker on a wallet used to hold the ID that everyone showed upon entering). These people were told that if they didn't depart the premises, they would be arrested. Even though they had purchased their tickets.

John Kerry doesn't screen visitors to his events or have any barred/refused from entry. Even if they have big "W's" on their T-Shirts.

Misuse of Secret Service agents and cheating with an electronic receiver to a debate coach.

Do we really want someone so dishonorable and dishonest to be the President for four more years?

Originally posted by toms
As far as i can tell spider isn't what i would call liberal... not even close.

I think we all have our own names for what we call Spider.


Anyway, regarding the receiver, I don't think people were telling him what to do...
Its probably just Halliburton saying "breathe in...breathe out...breathe in..."

Ok, so both regimes have bad histories. Bush's regimes is perhaps the worse of the two.

But that aside, would you rather have a regime with a bad History, low intelligence and abysmal speaking skills, than a regime with a bad history, semi-intelligent leaders and an average ability in rhetoric.

Now, now, SkinWalker. Those are very serious accusations based on very thin evidence. There are hundreds of possible reasons for that small "bump", and jumping to conclusions like that doesn't suit you. Seems like you spend a little too much time on anti-Bush web sites.
Much like republicans yelling about what looked like Kerry took something out of his jacket pocket.

Besides, how would it matter in any case? A presidental election should be decided by who has the best arguments for why he should become president, not by who looks most "presidental", or who's the "most honest debater" or who's the best rethoric or whatever.

Originally posted by Breton
Besides, how would it matter in any case? A presidental election should be decided by who has the best arguments for why he should become president

Well, since we're voting for the best arguments, should't we elect that guy who was telling Bush what to say?

Iamtrip:
I think we all have our own names for what we call Spider.Nice to know that one has an impact on people, even if the reverse is not true. ;)

Breton:
A presidental election should be decided by who has the best arguments for why he should become president, not by who looks most "presidental", or who's the "most honest debater" or who's the best rethoric or whatever.For a politician being a good orator is essential... furthermore, don't you want an "honest debater" as prez? I know I would, were I American.

so who won the second one?

so who won the second one?And so it begins again... :D

Well I think that Bush's arguments were still insubstantial. I think Kerry focussed on the fact that he hasn't changed position on the important issues a little too much... but that's hardy surprising considering the fact that that's ALL his opposition focusses on.

So,.. Kerry.

well, tonights debate was interesting.

well check this out.

bush = owned (mms://a1632.v80823.c8082.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1632/8082/v0001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/video/idontknow/idontknow.wmv)

Got a better link?

Taken from www.whitehouse.gov) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041014-1.html)

MODERATOR: Anything to add, Senator Kerry?

SENATOR KERRY: Yes. When the President had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of him, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped. Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught, dead or alive, this President was asked, where is Osama bin Laden? He said, I don't know, I don't really think about him very much, I'm not that concerned. We need a President who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

MODERATOR: Mr. President.

SENATOR KERRY: Gosh, I don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. That's kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course, we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden. but as I posted before (apparently it doesn't work for everyone) we see the opposite of this statement.

try this (http://www.democrats.org/idontknow/index.html)

audio of it. (http://www.boomspeed.com/insanesith/Bush_Im_not_really_concerned.mp3)

I put this in the election thread, but i guess it applies here too: Youth Debate Q&A with main 3 candidates are available here:
http://youthdebate.newvotersproject.org/the_candidates_respond.html)
Unasked questions important to young voters, plus the chace to rate the answers.

My fave bit so far...

question: "When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion? Both sides have been accused of flip-flopping on important issues - President Bush on establishing the Dept. of Homeland Security and steel tariffs, Senator Kerry on the Iraq war. But changing opinion due to thoughtful reconsideration ought not to be derided as flip-flopping. Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance."

answer: "President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor" :D

----------------------------------------------------------
Overall Ratings from young people (i guess):

Bush: Overall Rating: 2.58
Kerry: Overall Rating: 3.39
Nader: Overall Rating: 3.40

Ratings Key:
1. Disagree
2. Mostly Disagree
3. Neutral
4. Mostly Agree
5. Agree
----------------------------------------------------------
Turns out i like the views of candidate i have never heard of more than either of the two main ones... and so does everyone else. Shame the system won't allow that to be reflected in the votes.
Your Rating(Bush): 2.5000
Your Rating(Kerry): 3.3333
Your Rating(Nader): 4.5000