Will you decide who to vote for based on televised debates?

[ylexot]

Kerry dominates bush in the debates, it just shows how much more charismatic he is

I think "dominates" is a bit strong. The polls do say that Kerry won the two debates, but not by a whole lot.

Anyway, I want someone with good ideas, not someone who looks good. I'd take a stuttering hunchback over Kerry if he/she had better ideas on where to lead the country.

 

[Bogart]

I had my mind made up before i started posting here

It doesn't show.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Kerry dominates bush in the debates, it just shows how much more charismatic he is (though you pubs would argue "well kerry isnt as personable")... I would want someone who can articulate themselves representing me over a man who talks about the internets....


I had my mind made up before i started posting here

Kerry speaks well like most lawyers. The problem with most lawyers is they don't know what the meaning of the word is is.

I would rather have someone who will carry the war to the terrorists.

Since your mind is made up, why do you post here? Don't bother explaining. It was a rhetorical question.

 

[Spoiled]

And I would rather have a person of action over a person of articulation and charisma. If leading is nothing more than sound bites then I guess Kerry would be the choice. Fortunately, there are only a few people that base an important choice such as this on presentation versus action.

Maybe you have never seen any of my other political posts, or maybe you just have an affinity for me, not sure... But I supported kerry before the debates, he knows what war is like so he wont be so quick in sending our troops into harms way. He doesnt let his religion make decisions for him. He doesnt want to restrict peoples rites, he is for preserving the environment. He wants to give funding to education, he wants to start getting rid of our massive debt... He wants to improve our relationship with the rest of the world.

 

[Hessian]

Predictability...

I believe we leave ourselves open to attack when we become too predictable.
Think about prison breaks...the inmates learn the routine & personality of the guards.

George Bush has a streak in him that leaves opponents (and "allies") somewhat unsettled--GOOD.
Naturally there is great harm if a leader is rash and irrational...that is NOT what I see in Bush. Let History be the judge (B Franklin) whether Bush's form of leadership in this present age was wise. Why did the Chinese open up talks with Nixon (he was pulling out of Viet Nam right?)..its because he was playing a clever game of detente with the USSR and using some of China's old phobias....this left lots of people nervous but, they didn't understand the "game" or his unpredictable style.

If we could only get Bush to slam the borders now!

 

[Ken King]

Maybe you have never seen any of my other political posts, or maybe you just have an affinity for me, not sure... But I supported kerry before the debates, he knows what war is like so he wont be so quick in sending our troops into harms way. He doesnt let his religion make decisions for him. He doesnt want to restrict peoples rites, he is for preserving the environment. He wants to give funding to education, he wants to start getting rid of our massive debt... He wants to improve our relationship with the rest of the world.

Trust me as I care not for you or about you, you are nothing but a nuisance (a pimple on the butt of life) and Kerry is a person that cannot be trusted. He has no clue what war is like or his record in the Congress would reflect any learned belief. He is a man that votes to allow a war to occur and then denies those he helped send into harm's way funding and support critical to the initial task. He is a nothing more then a weasel.

 

[2ndAmendment]

he knows what war is like so he wont be so quick in sending our troops into harms way.

Yes, he knows so much about war. Why won't he sign form 180 to release his military records? Could it be he has something to hide?

He doesnt let his religion make decisions for him.

[sarcasm]Has real convictions.[/sarcasm]

He doesnt want to restrict peoples rites, he is for preserving the environment.

The word is "rights". "Rites" are typically religious ceremonies. But addressing this claim, why does he consistently vote for gun control is express violation of his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution.

He wants to give funding to education,

Education is not under the purview of the Federal government. It is a state or local issue that the Feds have interjected, unconstitutionally, themselves into.

he wants to start getting rid of our massive debt...

By spending more on college tuition (unconstitutional), health care (unconstitutional), the environment (unconstitutional)

He wants to improve our relationship with the rest of the world.

You and he and most diplomats and politicians have not learned the old school yard lesson that you cannot buy friends. He wants to improve by letting the French, Germans, and Russians (the countries that oppose us at every turn unless we twist their arm or pay them) participate in the rebuilding of Iraq.

 

[Penn]

I believe we leave ourselves open to attack when we become too predictable.
Think about prison breaks...the inmates learn the routine & personality of the guards.

George Bush has a streak in him that leaves opponents (and "allies") somewhat unsettled--GOOD.
Naturally there is great harm if a leader is rash and irrational...that is NOT what I see in Bush. Let History be the judge (B Franklin) whether Bush's form of leadership in this present age was wise. Why did the Chinese open up talks with Nixon (he was pulling out of Viet Nam right?)..its because he was playing a clever game of detente with the USSR and using some of China's old phobias....this left lots of people nervous but, they didn't understand the "game" or his unpredictable style.

If we could only get Bush to slam the borders now!

I like your ideas and thoughts here.

There seem to be a lot of folks who don't have a good read on G.W. Bush.

That is their downfall and most certainly, their mistake; in the terrorist regime, I think it will prove to be their undoing.

 

[barefootduchess]

I heard a bunch of similar comments after the first debate, but none after the 2nd. What, you don't think Bush can handle 2 good debates in a row and already starting to make excuses?

I'm not making excuses.....and not really feeling a need for Explanations,
but my not believing that George Bush will always trump a polished Debate opponent does not at all imply my faltering faith in him as a leader. Somebody said somewhere, "He doesn't need to be Debator-in-Chief".
He is my choice for "Commander-in Chief".



I trust George Bush to be deliberate about issues. I don't have the same faith in the voting public.

 

[Spoiled]

Yes, he knows so much about war. Why won't he sign form 180 to release his military records? Could it be he has something to hide?


[sarcasm]Has real convictions.[/sarcasm]

The word is "rights". "Rites" are typically religious ceremonies. But addressing this claim, why does he consistently vote for gun control is express violation of his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution.

Education is not under the purview of the Federal government. It is a state or local issue that the Feds have interjected, unconstitutionally, themselves into.

By spending more on college tuition (unconstitutional), health care (unconstitutional), the environment (unconstitutional)

You and he and most diplomats and politicians have not learned the old school yard lesson that you cannot buy friends. He wants to improve by letting the French, Germans, and Russians (the countries that oppose us at every turn unless we twist their arm or pay them) participate in the rebuilding of Iraq.

remind me how grants and aid is unconstitutional... Bush was the one who did no child left behind and couldnt come up with the funding...

and there are implied powers...

 

[Llwynog]

He wants to improve our relationship with the rest of the world.

Saddam misused oil-food program
The governments of Russia, France and China also blocked U.S. efforts within the United Nations to stop abuse of the program, which was designed to get food and medicine to Iraqis through limited sales of oil.
"As the program developed, it became increasingly apparent the French, Russians, and Chinese had much to gain from maintaining the status quo," a staff subcommittee memorandum states.


French connection armed Saddam
The intelligence reports showing French assistance to Saddam ongoing in the late winter of 2002 helped explain why France refused to deal harshly with Iraq and blocked U.S. moves at the United Nations.


Why should we get cozy with them. I think some countries need to improve their relationship with us.

 

[kom526]

I did not watch any of the debates, my decision has been made. I would like to think that most people have made a choice that has not been tainted by the media. (left wing AND right wing media) I also hope that people are not making a decision based on what they see and read on the internets.

Vote Democrat
Vote Republican
Just Vote, because if you don't you have no right to beech and moan.

 

[vraiblonde]

read on the internets.

Look! A Bush voter!

(Kom, since you didn't watch the debates, you won't get that joke. In the last one, Bush said something about the "internets", when there's only ONE internet, not multiple ones. I'm just teasing you - welcome to the forums! )

 

[vraiblonde]

I think some countries need to improve their relationship with us.

Amen, sista!

 

[UrbanPancake]

Let's put it this way: I feel G.W. Bush will not waver, will not bend to the unfavorable opinions of others who do not have the stomach to stay this perilous course.

It's not an easy road; it hasn't been, and it will not be one for the faint of heart. The defeat of terrorism isn't like a conventional conflict. There probably will not be a clear victory, like we saw in WWII, or even the Gulf War of 1991, or other wars this country has been involved with.

But I'd rather have him at the helm of this country to see it through, more than any other candidate. Some see him as a "cowboy", I see him as a man who you've underestimated, misunderstood, and one you should never have crossed swords with.

As long as he is at the leadership of the United States, and it's allies, we will bring these people to justice, disarm them, or destroy them before they can harm us.

That, I believe, is his goal.

I think we misunderstand him because he can't speak the english language. Its pretty hard to understand someone who mumbles....

Bush doesn't waver or bend? Do I have to bring up what Bush said about how we went to war with Iraq over WMD, and now there aren't, and we went to war for another reason? It sounds like he is trying to make an excuse. Wow I bet Bush eats waffles for breakfast, lunch, and dinner!

 

[2ndAmendment]

remind me how grants and aid is unconstitutional... Bush was the one who did no child left behind and couldnt come up with the funding...

and there are implied powers...

Constitutional illiterate, like many, aren't you. There are no implied powers because of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.