Debate threadFollow

But measured against the expected Bush poor showing and Kerry supremacy, it by some perverse logic becomes a win when Bush does considerably better and Kerry deflates in the final round. I grant you this line of reasoning can clearly be seen as spinning, but when you think about how the vast majority of Americans look at the candidate's attitude, demeanor, and his carriage of the debate as a whole (for example, the perception that Bush was very defensive and nervous in the first debate) and not content, then running out of steam in the third of three debates appears to be weakness.

Anyone else think immediately of Halliburton's no-bid contract immediately?

If you are paying your employees minimum wage in the first place then you should go to hell.

What's that on the corner of Bush's mouth?

'The borders are much better protected than when I was Gov. of Texas.'

Ow, that didn't sound too good.

Just a point. I don't see that as inconsistent. He doesn't say he's not concerned about Bin Laden, or that Bin Laden isn't a concern, or that he's not worried about Bin Laden. He said "I truly am not that concerned about him", in the context of whether he was more concerned about things like "making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, ... strategy is clear, ... coalition is strong ..." etc.

His position has been very clear and very consistent. Bin Laden is *one* part of the war on terror, but his policy is not to ignore the rest of the problems while chasing through the mountains after one guy like a bad rerun of the Keystone Cops. He's not going to ignore other threats just to "get Bin Laden".

It's the Dems position that we should have ignored Iraq and focused just on Bin Laden, not the Reps. There's nothing inconsistent about Bush making that statement. In fact, he's exactly right. Implying that he claimed that Bin Laden is not a concern *is* an exageration of what he actually said.


There is some inconsistency with Kerry saying what he's saying though...

Edited, Wed Oct 13 22:27:56 2004 by gbaji

With that "idear" garble-ism he sounds like he's trying to get the Texas vote by out-Southern drawling Bush. As a Mass resident he's not supposed to even know how to pronounce his "R"'s-- kinda like inverse Japanese. Blatent pandering to Southerners...

Totem

Yep, in the south, when we butcher the word "idea", we use "ideal"

Yeah, that too. But one of the women that I work with (who speaks FLUENT mountain hick) says Ideal every single time. Makes me want to strangle her.

Pieman,



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Unlike big corporations when the government controls my health care they aren't going to ***** me with thier price gouging.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are a complete and utter moron. You shouldn't be allowed to come back here and discuss anyting involved with the economy until you've read Wealth of Nations or taken economics class. Let me explain this as simply as possible when you have big corporations fighting over customer base that drives prices down. For example lets look at insurance; you have your allstates and state farms fighting over who can get the most customers to buy their service. In order to appeal to the consumer price is an important issue, therefore greater competition leads to lower prices. Now if government were to be in control of the insurance industry and set the price while initially low in cost have you ever known a government agency that actually decreased it's budget? The point is competition is good and the more companies that are fighting over who gets to sell me the most drugs the price of those drugs will decrease. Conversely when there's no competition the price of something tends to increase.

whew...I didn't even get paid for that


Varus