MERGED: 2nd U.S. Presidential Debate - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-08-2004, 10:11 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ladywithspinninghead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,634
Local Time: 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I believe polls re: who won will be in favour of Kerry.

It is very off putting to be screamed at and every TV anchor is calling Bush on it tonight.
Hi there, long time no talk!

Anyhow, I'm not sure what channels you're watching but I'm noticing a real lack of commentary on all the major networks about Bush's yelling and outburst towards Charles Gibson.

How can the media go on about scowls, sighs and glancing at your watch but hardly mention the fact the President was yelling at the audience.

It's so absurd - the media wants this to remain as tight a race as possible to bring in the largest possible number of viewers....
__________________

__________________
ladywithspinninghead is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 10:13 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ladywithspinninghead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,634
Local Time: 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC
Looks like all the polls are saying Kerry again.

CNN
Who won the second presidential debate?

President Bush 16% 14147 votes
John Kerry 83% 73818 votes
Evenly matched 2% 1363 votes
Total: 89328 votes

MSNBC
Pres. Bush 26%
Sen. Kerry 74%

CBS News
Who won the debate?

President Bush: 11.51%
John Kerry: 88.10%
Neither man. It was a draw: 0.38%

Those were the only 3 I could find at this point.
That's because all the Republicans are all on the "other" mysterious Internet Bush referred to tonight ("Internets")
__________________

__________________
ladywithspinninghead is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 10:15 PM   #78
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 12:06 PM
slightly off-topic, but Jewish law permits abortion under certain circumstances such as if the mother's life is in danger or due to the mother's mental health. Also, the soul of the child does not enter the embryo until 40 days after conception and is considered part of the mother until birth, not a separate entity.

I don't want to start a debate with this, just point out that Bush's Christian views do not agree with Jewish views on this and therefore, I believe Kerry is right. He needs to represent all Americans, not just the Christian or Catholics ones.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 10:17 PM   #79
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu
Mentioning Dred Scott was weak no doubt... but his whole schtick about appointing judges who aren't techincally activist judges is typical Repub talk.... typical Repub talk = kissing ass. We can all admit that.
I will concede that.

Karl Rove schooled him to say "libreral"
and "trial lawyer" to fire up the base.

He was playing to his base.
This election will be more about turnout than the undecideds.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 10:21 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ladywithspinninghead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,634
Local Time: 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu
Really? My understanding of the relationship between the Pope and Catholics was that Catholics generally respect the Pope. But you're saying Catholics gernally don't like the Pope? Okay...
Don't forget Anitram lives in Canada and as a whole, we canucks tend to be a lot more liberal than our American friends....(the word "liberal" doesn't have the same negative connotations here as it does in the U.S.)
__________________
ladywithspinninghead is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 10:21 PM   #81
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 12:06 PM
The Dred Scott thing was wrong. he said it was a property case but really it was a case in which the court said a black person was not a human being, thereby making them property. Not the same. As for the pledge case, the fact of the matter remains that the first amendment creates a separation of church and state. maybe bush should reread that.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 10:24 PM   #82
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:06 AM
yeah.

the pledge thing just means he will have a litmus test.

the dread scott thing was like the south park guys preped him for the debate.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 10:58 PM   #83
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 10:06 AM
my libral friends,
which of these accomplishments are you against?

5.4% unemployment

Highest home ownership ever

Lowest interest rates in 50 years

Free elections in Afghanistan tomorrow

No more women raped in Saddam's sons' rape rooms

Thousands of Al Qeida killed and caught

Highest minority home ownership ever

Parents able to take their kids out of failing public schools and put them in successful public schools

Seniors have drug benefits for the first time in history

We ALL got tax cuts.

Enron, Worldcomm and Adelphia executives all caught and being prosecuted

No more partial birth abortions

db9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 11:00 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:06 AM
No Blood For Oil!

I am against:
>No more partial birth abortions
>Limit on government money towards embryonic stem cell research
>Cutting funding to organizations that promote some forms of birth control
>Oppositions to gay marriage
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 11:04 PM   #85
The Fly
 
medmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: directing traffic on the disco floor
Posts: 256
Local Time: 11:06 AM
OK, I scanned through this thread and can't find my answer, so I have to ask..............

Who said what about the Dred Scott decision? I missed the first of the debate; was this mentioned then?
__________________
medmo is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 11:29 PM   #86
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu
Really? My understanding of the relationship between the Pope and Catholics was that Catholics generally respect the Pope. But you're saying Catholics gernally don't like the Pope? Okay...

I understand there are secular religious people. There are Christians who don't believe that Jesus is divine, Jewish people who eat pork, and Muslims who don't wear their scarves/ headress. However, I tend to believe the actual followers of their faith pretty much follow the company line so to speak and that is who I'm referring to. I'd actually lump the more "secular" religious people with the everybody else crowd. But I can see what angle you're coming from.
What I've noticed is that except for very traditional or fundamentalist followers of whatever religion, most people use the precepts of their particular religion as a guide in their lives, not as a compulsary rule without any deviation allowed.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 11:36 PM   #87
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
my libral friends,
which of these accomplishments are you against?

5.4% unemployment

Highest home ownership ever

Lowest interest rates in 50 years

Free elections in Afghanistan tomorrow

No more women raped in Saddam's sons' rape rooms

Thousands of Al Qeida killed and caught

Highest minority home ownership ever

Parents able to take their kids out of failing public schools and put them in successful public schools

Seniors have drug benefits for the first time in history

We ALL got tax cuts.

Enron, Worldcomm and Adelphia executives all caught and being prosecuted

No more partial birth abortions

db9
Lowest interest rates are due to poor economy, we've had the poorest economies in the past 4 years/
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-08-2004, 11:38 PM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
No Blood For Oil!

I am against:
>No more partial birth abortions

Wanderer,

so youre ok w Partail Birth Abortions?

http://newsmax.com/images/headlines/Oct8_Debate.jpg

note the poser and The President by clicking link..

db9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-08-2004, 11:56 PM   #89
War Child
 
Inner El Guapo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 609
Local Time: 11:06 AM
The only thing that has came from the two debates that really means anything is that the charicature that Bush/Rove painted of Kerry isn't going to stick.

The undecideds will take that in account. Probably the only reason Bush lost his inflated 10 point lead after the first debate.

This debate was really par for the course. You either believe that Bush is doing the right things or you don't. Some people just didn't think Kerry could do the "job", because they had bought into the "charicature".

The more that idea disolves, the better Kerry's chances are, simply because Bush has done enough to himself to implode any non-war time President, and the only thing keeping him afloat is die-hard Republicans and those who are guilty of buying in to the faer mongering.

The war on terror is just as winnable as the war on poverty and drugs. It's a fallacy to think we can win it anytime soon, or easily.

Bush even has support of fiscal conservatives, who would cringe if they really understood his policies. Zero vetoes of ANY spending bills. ANY. He's the antithesis of fiscal conservatism.

This is only a contest because Kerry was painted into a corner and slowly he's getting out of that corner. Will it mean he wins the election? Who knows? But it does mean that Bush needs to offer more than the meat and potatoes, people probably won't buy into it too much longer.

Carter and Reagan was a dead heat until they both got onstage together. I think it's going to be a dead heat until election day.

Tonight's debate was nothing more than a draw, both candidates firing up their base, and the undecideds still scrathing their heads, however many are left of them.

The real issue is that Kerry has stood toe to toe with the President and NOT LOSE either debate, clearly winning the first debate.

Events might make the difference, ultimately.
__________________
Inner El Guapo is offline  
Old 10-09-2004, 01:23 AM   #90
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by medmo
OK, I scanned through this thread and can't find my answer, so I have to ask..............

Who said what about the Dred Scott decision? I missed the first of the debate; was this mentioned then?
\




Quote:
QUESTIONER: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

BUSH: I'm not telling.

(LAUGHTER)

I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.

(LAUGHTER)

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

Thank you.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com