| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2004/10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33871 Activity:very high |
10/1 Kerry clearly won the first debate. Pretty funny watching
the Bush supporters trying to change the subject.
http://csua.org/u/9a7
And this is Bush's strongest subject.
\_ No, changing the subject is Bush's strongest stubject. Just watch.
\_ Kerry clearly stuck to DNC fax talking points, had no substance
and is going to seriously fuck up NK and continue insulting our
troops and our allies around the world if the people make a
horrible mistake and elect his elitist, out of touch ass to
anything outside his home state.
\_ Mmm, echo chambers...
\_ Hahahaha out of touch? That's rich. "The American people are
safer!" Hahaha keep saying it maybe it'll make it true.
\_ He was definitely the better speaker. The difference though was the
ideas, not so much the presentation.
\_ Kerry finally opens his mouth and for the first time doesn't
self-destruct. And you're getting excited about this?
\_ Er, Bush self-destructs every time he opens his mouth. I think
you may want to get out of that echo chamber...
\_ If I were voting for president of the
the debate club, on style I'd probably choose Kerry.
Since the President must be an effective leader,
especially during war, and on policy, I choose Bush.
Honestly, build Iran a nuclear power plant, end research
on bunker busters, a "world test", and referring to
'glory' days when France revered us!? - bizarre.
Maybe Kerry can debate the terrorists to death and impress
the French and Germans with his elan
\_ How can you be an effective leader if you can't even speak in
complete sentences, or tolerate dissent without going into fits
of rage? Honestly, its amazing that folks around here put so
much value on intelligence, wisdom, and "clue," yet when these
traits are clearly lacking in their leader, they turn a blind
eye. There is a difference between leadership and blind folly.
[restored]
\_ Actions not words. Bush gave a somewhat poor performance, but
it was better the second time I watched. Also he showed alot
of restraint and was not aggressive the way Kerry was.
I've seen Bush be much more effective, I don't think he
does well in the evenings as he gets up early.
\_ So you support the president who says, you can't have nuclear
weapon, but we are developing more nuclear weapons, you just
can't because I said so. You honestly don't see a problem with
this logic? Talk about sending mixed signals to the rest of the
world! You must abid by the rules you set out that you want the
others to follow! |
| 4/4 |
|
| csua.org/u/9a7 -> www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-01-battleground-debate_x.htm No minds made up just yet in this room By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY MEDIA, Pa. A panel of 15 undecided voters convened to watch the debate. Although the panel leaned Republican in party registration, when it came to deciding who won the first of three presidential debates, the members overwhelmingly gave the nod to Kerry. Only three members of the group who watched the debate at the offices of JRP Marketing Research Services thought Bush emerged the winner. "He was horrible," said Jason Marsh, 28, a data systems clerk who said he is a registered Republican. But other members of the panel thought that Bush, while less verbally adept, was easier to understand. "I feel he is heartfelt," said Susan Connery Bruno, 45, a health-food store owner. The debate watchers were an economically and educationally diverse group. They reflected the political diversity of this suburban Philadelphia community, where Republicans dominate but voters don't always cast their ballots according to their party registration. Of the group, 12 said they were registered Republican and three were registered Democrats. Five said they voted for Bush in 2000, five voted for Democrat Al Gore and five did not vote. "It was my protest," said George Clarius, 54, an electrical engineer who wasn't satisfied with either candidate four years ago. He's not sure whether he'll cast a vote for president this year. Seven members of the panel said they came away from the debate closer to a decision about how they would cast their vote. George Silli, 65, a waiter who said he backed Bush in 2000, said Kerry seemed "more knowledgeable" than the president. Internet company manager Bob Simon, 36, said he came into the debate leaning toward the president but left "more comfortable with Kerry." Neither of them has definitely decided to vote for Kerry, however. They said they're waiting to hear more at later debates. "The mess we're in right now, I don't know if I want to change," she said. But Mancuso said she's still not sure she'll vote for Bush. "What I want to know is how much of the world is Bush going to take on?" The candidates' insistence on sticking to their campaign talking points exasperated many of the debate-watchers. "I came out of it a little more frustrated with both," said civil engineer Joel Comanda, 29. "Get off it already," Janet Watson, 58, a medical assistant, muttered at the TV screen at one point during the debate. Watson said she came eager to hear more information about the candidates' plans for Iraq, where her godson is stationed in the Army. The debate-watchers said they liked the debate format but weren't happy with how the candidates used it. They said both candidates relied too much on rhetoric and didn't provide enough details on how they planned to implement their plans for combating terrorism and securing Iraq. Teaching assistant Kimberly Kelly, 45, spoke for many members of the group when she said she needs to hear more before deciding who will get her vote. |