View Poll Results: Who won the 10/8 debate?

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • Bush

    14 31.11%
  • Kerry

    23 51.11%
  • Neither

    4 8.89%
  • Didn't watch

    4 8.89%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31
  1.    #1  
    Just curious what sort of leanings this group might have and I didn't want to read through all of the previous post on the subject ...

    Regards,
    Mike
    Last edited by work2fish; 10/09/2004 at 02:46 PM.
  2. #2  
    I gotta say, bush did a lot better this time through. Both made some mistakes here and there. But all around this was a good debate. I vote that neither won.
    "The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but that we will agree to meet them halfway." -Bernard Avishai
    "Computers are a lot like air conditioners - they both work great until you open windows." -Anonymous

  3. #3  
    Tekara, you cannot be serious with your statement that neither won. Some mistakes here and there by both? Some by Bush (really a small some) and Kerry - lots more than some. It was very evident throughout that Kerry was talking without substantial facts. His health care is exactly what Hillary presented a few years back. All the insurance coverage he is pushing for with his "plan" and his plan to pay for it and when one thinks about it, no plan to pay for it was presented. He said one and then another and at the end, I was very confused. He spoke of the deficit and when looked at in comparison with GNP, it is not high at all. He refused to accept the fact that we were in an economic slump at the end of the good days of Clinton's party. He just never got to it. I really though enjoyed it when he accused Bush of the company he owned and wow, did Bush respond to that! Bush even offered Kerry a job - a nonexistent company.

    Kerry spoke of taxation and what he would have to pay. His wife's money is buried. He claims only his Senate pay and refuses to pony up what his real worth is. Will he have to pay? Not substantially.

    They talked of medical costs and that he nor Eddy were there to vote for it. Bush was great this time. Comfortable in his presentation. Buddy Kerry continued to speak to the moderator and George W continued to speak to the audiance and nation.

    No comparison this time.

    So, why not really tell us what you think. The statement that neither won is not an honest one.

    Take care. Ben
  4. #4  
    Haha, you are right that I am being a bit pc. I do in fact see through Kerry's plans, knowing that he will have to increase taxes in order to fund them, in spite of that fact that everyone knows it he had the nerv to say to the camera that he wouldn't raise taxes.

    On a point though, Bush does own a timber company that accounts for a fractional percentage of his income that he in turn under his small business definition uses to qualify himself as a small business. While Kerry called it wrong, he did speak the truth.

    I hate Bush's "no child left behind" plan, that plan is cutting all the technical classes from schools in favor of classes that are tested on. In addition underfunded schools are being fined for not having enough money to properly teach their students. Yeah! way to go on that one.

    here's a good article covering the points far better than I would
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134939,00.html

    I can't award either person the win on this debate. But in turn that fact helps Bush a lot, because it means Kerry's momentum is being reduced to a crawl.

    Since I know the wonder is there, I am going to be voting for Bush in this upcomming election. I can't tolerate Kerry's unpredictable flip-flopping.
    "The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but that we will agree to meet them halfway." -Bernard Avishai
    "Computers are a lot like air conditioners - they both work great until you open windows." -Anonymous

  5. #5  
    Haha, you are right that I am being a bit pc. I do in fact see through Kerry's plans, knowing that he will have to increase taxes in order to fund them, in spite of that fact that everyone knows it he had the nerv to say to the camera that he wouldn't raise taxes.
    Please pass on the details of this grand conclusion. From what I see, rolling back the tax break to those making over $200,000 will get back majority plus revenue.

    While Kerry called it wrong, he did speak the truth.


    I can't tolerate Kerry's unpredictable flip-flopping.
    Way to drink the Kool-Aid. Although both were good in style (Bush was a bit hostile), Kerry was the only one who said anything specific.

    This Country can NOT handle 4 more years of this administration, except maybe Powell.
  6. #6  
    Kerry specific? Sure was and then he would change it. He flip/flopped in this one also. Foru more years of this administration? The last four have been good to all of us when you look at what this country went through. As for the No Child Left Behind - hey, the democrats supported it - ole Teddy was right up there when it was signed. The timber company? No, Bush does not own one. May have - not the same as does.

    Hostile? Bush did get up and talk during the debate because of what Kerry was saying - Kerry threw the first mud and reacted hostile five times versus Bush's two times and the dang shame is that I heard it on the radio, not the TV, so I did not have any of the distractions most others did.

    Ben
  7. #7  
    Kerry specific? Sure was and then he would change it. He flip/flopped in this one also.
    cite please.

    The last four have been good to all of us when you look at what this country went through.
    Puleez. Bush can't lean on that crutch forever with the budget surplus he's blown and a failed economic policy that didn't work for Reagen either.

    We're running at a net job loss and part of that is due to outsourcing. We're paying companies to outsource and Bush defends that. Kerry intends to reward companies for keeping jobs here.

    We're also facing escalating health care costs and John Kerry has the plan for that. Shaking the boogieman of "The gov't is going to control your health care. boogie boogie!" is not a plan.

    ole Teddy was right up there when it was signed
    Why are republicans trying to tie Kerry to Ted Kennedy?

    The timber company? No, Bush does not own one. May have - not the same as does.
    quote from factcheck.org (attempted recommended by **** Cheney) "Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

    In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." "

    the dang shame is that I heard it on the radio, not the TV, so I did not have any of the distractions most others did.
    What distractions are those. The facial expressions of the speaker? I don't call that a distraction. I call it information.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    We're running at a net job loss and part of that is due to outsourcing. We're paying companies to outsource and Bush defends that. Kerry intends to reward companies for keeping jobs here.
    Kerry accused Bush of losing actual jobs, saying "the president has presided over the economy where we've lost 1.6 million jobs," calling him the "first president in 72 years to lose jobs."
    Actually, there are 139.5 million Americans working now, 1.7 million more than the 137.8 million jobs when Bush took office, according to seasonally adjusted Labor Department data released Friday.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

    Just cause Kerry says it, doesnt make it true.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  9. #9  
    I laughed when Kerry made the statement, "Not necessarily", when asked if Saddam would still be in power if Kerry had been President. Talk about wishy-washy answers...
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  10. #10  
    I laughed when Kerry made the statement, "Not necessarily", when asked if Saddam would still be in power if Kerry had been President. Talk about wishy-washy answers...
    You can take that how you want. I took it as sticking with the theme of not rushing into an invasion of Iraq. We had more control over Iraq BEFORE the invasion than after.

    Actually, there are 139.5 million Americans working now, 1.7 million more than the 137.8 million jobs when Bush took office, according to seasonally adjusted Labor Department data released Friday.
    And what about those who became of work ageduring that period? You're not taking that into account. However, to be fair, Kerry excluded gov't jobs quoting private sector numbers.

    Again from factCheck.org;
    "Kerry misled when he claimed the economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush. It is true that figures released earlier in the day show the economy is still down by 1.6 million private sector jobs since Bush took office, but the drop in total payroll employment -- including teachers, firemen, policemen and other federal, state and local government employees -- is down by much less than that -- 821,000. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced, with the release of the latest figures, that its yearly "benchmark" revision would add an estimated 236,000 payroll jobs to the total when made final next February. That means the best current estimate is that 585,000 jobs have been lost under Bush, about one-third of the number Kerry stated.

    Kerry may turn out to be correct when he said Bush would be "the first president in 72 years to lose jobs." Payroll employment has been growing at roughly 100,000 jobs per month for the past four months, and there are only four months to go -- October, November, December and January -- until the end of Bush's term in January, 2005. (The number that will actually go into the economic history books won't be known until February 2006, when the BLS publishes its final benchmark revisions of 2004 data.)"

    Ironically, what Bush and the Republicans blame the economy on, 9-11, actually bolsters the overall job numbers.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You can take that how you want. I took it as sticking with the theme of not rushing into an invasion of Iraq. We had more control over Iraq BEFORE the invasion than after.

    And what about those who became of work ageduring that period? You're not taking that into account. However, to be fair, Kerry excluded gov't jobs quoting private sector numbers.

    Again from factCheck.org;
    "Kerry misled when he claimed the economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush. It is true that figures released earlier in the day show the economy is still down by 1.6 million private sector jobs since Bush took office, but the drop in total payroll employment -- including teachers, firemen, policemen and other federal, state and local government employees -- is down by much less than that -- 821,000. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced, with the release of the latest figures, that its yearly "benchmark" revision would add an estimated 236,000 payroll jobs to the total when made final next February. That means the best current estimate is that 585,000 jobs have been lost under Bush, about one-third of the number Kerry stated.

    Kerry may turn out to be correct when he said Bush would be "the first president in 72 years to lose jobs." Payroll employment has been growing at roughly 100,000 jobs per month for the past four months, and there are only four months to go -- October, November, December and January -- until the end of Bush's term in January, 2005. (The number that will actually go into the economic history books won't be known until February 2006, when the BLS publishes its final benchmark revisions of 2004 data.)"

    Ironically, what Bush and the Republicans blame the economy on, 9-11, actually bolsters the overall job numbers.
    I just gave you the link to the real statistics from the Dept of Labor. It says that there are more people working today then the year Bush took office. That is the real fact, not sombody's spin on the subject.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  12. #12  
    I just gave you the link to the real statistics from the Dept of Labor. It says that there are more people working today then the year Bush took office. That is the real fact, not sombody's spin on the subject.
    Your spin on those numbers is you're ignoring the natural increase in the number of work age Americans.

    Let me draw you a picture. If there are 500 people working at time A and 600 at time B but between those times 150 people are added to those who need jobs then you have not created jobs.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Your spin on those numbers is you're ignoring the natural increase in the number of work age Americans.

    Let me draw you a picture. If there are 500 people working at time A and 600 at time B but between those times 150 people are added to those who need jobs then you have not created jobs.
    So according to you, there are more people working now than 4 years ago, but no new jobs created because the pool of workers is bigger? Sounds like something Kerry would say.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  14. #14  
    So according to you, there are more people working now than 4 years ago, but no new jobs created because the pool of workers is bigger? Sounds like something Kerry would say.
    Well, maybe it is expecting too much for the average person to understand that when one speaks about the number of jobs, it's done in relation to the work-age population.

    Also, realize that the jobs that are being created are low paying service industry jobs.
  15. #15  
    Except if you work for Haliburton.
    "Do the Chickens have large talons?" Napoleon Dynamite
  16. #16  
    Actually, it seems like you are twisting over backwards to support your position. Using your numbers, if there are 500 people working at time A, and 600 working at time B (with a bigger job pool), then 600 is still "more" than 500, isn't it? I'm just an "average person" as you say, I guess, but I always thought 600 was more than 500.

    Maybe I should get out my calculator and figure it out again.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  17. #17  
    Maybe I should get out my calculator and figure it out again.
    Maybe you should address the meaning of those numbers and put up your Logic 101 text book.
  18. #18  
    Let me draw you a picture. If there are 500 people working at time A and 600 at time B but between those times 150 people are added to those who need jobs then you have not created jobs.
    Somehow your logic escapes me. Using your example, the 150 people have just become of "work age", thus they have never had the jobs that you said Bush has lost.

    I can see why you would be interested in Kerry. You are arguing a point that just cant be substantiated with the facts that the Dept of Labor has reported. Sorry.
    Last edited by clairegrrl; 10/09/2004 at 09:28 PM.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  19. #19  
    I love the notion of 'rolling back' tax rates...you mean raising taxes...just say it...we're not stupid and it just makes Kerry sound like, well, a politician
  20. #20  
    I love the notion of 'rolling back' tax rates...you mean raising taxes...just say it...we're not stupid and it just makes Kerry sound like, well, a politician
    What-evs. If you wanr 4 more years of a trained monkey, be my guest.

    BTW, the middle class didn't benefit from the temp tax refund as the Fed slashed so much support to State and local budgets "folks" just ended up paying out locally. You want services, pay for 'em!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions