Us presidential election 2004

[ralphwiggum 6]

Walker your post are hilarious. Your post read like you're talking to your self in a mirror.  

Walker to mirror:" Hi mirror image.

This is what happened, it is as I say. Kerry won the debate by my decree. My decree is the gospel.  Bush lost his cool, he also lost on the partial birth abortion question. Why? Because I say so.

    George lost votes when he lost his cool. Why? Because I say so again silly. People will worry about his temper. Why? Once again because I decree they will.  

     Full of himself  Walker"

     HOnestly though, why do you post like that? Do you even read your post before you hit add reply? They all read that way. " This is how it is, every one's going to do this this is the outcome."  etc and further claims. All with out any substantial proof other than that is what you believe.

     Maybe your post would come across better if you posted as a human. For exampe...

Actual walker post: "Kerry won by about 15 to 12. It was a lot closer than the last debate."

Suggestion of how you could of worded that without coming across as a meglomaniac  "In my opinion Kerry won by about 15 to 12. I think It was a lot closer than the last debate. "

     If you have hard proof on something go ahead and post it as fact. I personally think though that posting "your" opinion as the gospel Example "Kerry won by about 15 to 12" is detrimental to the discussion.

     Can you imagine if every one posted as you do? I could come in and say stuff like, " Hi all, Bush won by about 55 to 48. Kerry lost because he smiled to much which makes every one think he's stoned". See what I mean? Total BS, where is my proof? I don't have any it's simply a stupid opinion pulled out of my ass, much like all of your post.

     Any how just thought I'd speak my mind. Some ones got to tell you.  You may be right half of the time walker, but when you post it in the manner you did no ones going to give it any credence because you end up coming across as a meglomaniac.

flaming?

[Akira 0]

blah blah blah

flaming?

Uh oh....

Ralph is in one of THOSE moods...

*runs and hides*

[Schoeler 0]

Walker your post are hilarious. Your post read like you're talking to your self in a mirror.  

Walker to mirror:" Hi mirror image.

This is what happened, it is as I say. Kerry won the debate by my decree. My decree is the gospel.  Bush lost his cool, he also lost on the partial birth abortion question. Why? Because I say so.

    George lost votes when he lost his cool. Why? Because I say so again silly. People will worry about his temper. Why? Once again because I decree they will.  

     Full of himself  Walker"

     HOnestly though, why do you post like that? Do you even read your post before you hit add reply? They all read that way. " This is how it is, every one's going to do this this is the outcome."  etc and further claims. All with out any substantial proof other than that is what you believe.

     Maybe your post would come across better if you posted as a human. For exampe...

Actual walker post: "Kerry won by about 15 to 12. It was a lot closer than the last debate."

Suggestion of how you could of worded that without coming across as a meglomaniac  "In my opinion Kerry won by about 15 to 12. I think It was a lot closer than the last debate. "

     If you have hard proof on something go ahead and post it as fact. I personally think though that posting "your" opinion as the gospel Example "Kerry won by about 15 to 12" is detrimental to the discussion.

     Can you imagine if every one posted as you do? I could come in and say stuff like, " Hi all, Bush won by about 55 to 48. Kerry lost because he smiled to much which makes every one think he's stoned". See what I mean? Total BS, where is my proof? I don't have any it's simply a stupid opinion pulled out of my ass, much like all of your post.

     Any how just thought I'd speak my mind. Some ones got to tell you.  You may be right half of the time walker, but when you post it in the manner you did no ones going to give it any credence because you end up coming across as a meglomaniac.

flaming?

Ralph, find your happy place and repeat over and over and over, "most people are logical, most people are logical". It is the ideologoues who shout the loudest, but don't mistake their loudness for the truth buddy.

As a good cop friend of mine told me, most of these people are "All talk and no cock."

[GoOB 0]

Walker your post are hilarious. Your post read like you're talking to your self in a mirror.

Walker to mirror:" Hi mirror image.

This is what happened, it is as I say. Kerry won the debate by my decree. My decree is the gospel. Bush lost his cool, he also lost on the partial birth abortion question. Why? Because I say so.

George lost votes when he lost his cool. Why? Because I say so again silly. People will worry about his temper. Why? Once again because I decree they will.

Full of himself Walker"

HOnestly though, why do you post like that? Do you even read your post before you hit add reply? They all read that way. " This is how it is, every one's going to do this this is the outcome." etc and further claims. All with out any substantial proof other than that is what you believe.

Maybe your post would come across better if you posted as a human. For exampe...

Actual walker post: "Kerry won by about 15 to 12. It was a lot closer than the last debate."

Suggestion of how you could of worded that without coming across as a meglomaniac "In my opinion Kerry won by about 15 to 12. I think It was a lot closer than the last debate. "

If you have hard proof on something go ahead and post it as fact. I personally think though that posting "your" opinion as the gospel Example "Kerry won by about 15 to 12" is detrimental to the discussion.

Can you imagine if every one posted as you do? I could come in and say stuff like, " Hi all, Bush won by about 55 to 48. Kerry lost because he smiled to much which makes every one think he's stoned". See what I mean? Total BS, where is my proof? I don't have any it's simply a stupid opinion pulled out of my ass, much like all of your post.

Any how just thought I'd speak my mind. Some ones got to tell you. You may be right half of the time walker, but when you post it in the manner you did no ones going to give it any credence because you end up coming across as a meglomaniac.

What Walker did was point out what HE saw. Nowhere in his post did I see him claiming that as the ultimate truth. If you disagree, try to debate his opinion in a somewhat civilized manner, instead of making yourself look like an arse.

[Bernadotte 0]

Who is McCain, a senator?

Sen. John McCain-R Arizona...

He is a Republican but works usually more as an independant. He has Republican leanings, but has no problem crossing the aisle, and he has hundreds of times, to stand with Democrats.

Basically people like him because he truely follows what he believes, and if the party line crosses that, he bucks the party. He also has no trouble saying what he thinks. In my opinion he is the only politician that works on the premise of "common sense."

McCain endured one of the most vicious smear campaigns ever seen when Bush defeated him in the 2000 Repulican primaries.  And then Bush's people had the nerve to beg McCain for the VP's role.  McCain refused.

Four years later, McCain surprised a lot of people by singing Bush's praises at the RNC.  So even McCain has his price.  

[kerosene 0]

All Walker did was offer his opinion on something thats totally subjective, how can you prove who won a debate?

There was nothing there thats really gonna change anyone who already made up their mind i dont think, I dont really understand the undeicedied voters, Its seems like people generally have pretty strong opinions on the candidates, what are people waiting to hear from one or other that hasnt already been said?

Bushes performance was a lot better, im guessing his people must have made him watch the last debate and told him he was fucked if he keeps going that way. No suspicous bulges coming out his back either.

Isnt that exprssion "all cock and no balls"?

[Bernadotte 0]

The funniest part of the debate was when Kerry claimed that  a timber company pays Bush.

Bush: I own a timber company?

Kerry: (awkward silence)

Bush (to moderator): You wanna buy some wood?´

Yes it sounded like Kerry was claiming that, even to Bush a native speaker of English who should have known better.  Kerry's poorly worded statement was an attempt to present a hypothetical example, so I think most of the audience may have been laughing at Bush for not understanding rather than laughing with him.  And according to the debate rules Kerry had little choice about remaining silent, whether awkward or not.

I believe one of Kerry's greatest missed opportunity came when Bush said the following regarding embryonic stem cell research:

Quote[/b] ]BUSH: To destroy life to save life is -- it's one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face.

Perhaps Kerry should have pointed out how that puts the value of Iraqi lives somewhere below that of an embryonic cell.

Regarding style I don't think Bush did himself any favours during the following exchange with the moderator:

Quote[/b] ]GIBSON: Mr. President, let's extend for a minute...

BUSH: Let me just -- I've got to answer this.

GIBSON: Exactly. And with Reservists being held on duty...

BUSH: [interrupting]  Let me answer what he just said, about around the world.

GIBSON: Well, I want to get into the issue of the back-door draft...

BUSH: [turning his back on the moderator and shouting]  You tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we're going alone.

This was classic Bush unilateralism, aggressively determined to express himself no matter what the moderator is trying to say or no matter how many debate rules he might be breaking.  In Bush's world, rules are only to be used against the other candidate who speaks out of turn or the other guy who drinks and drives or the other country that might consider defying the UN.

[walker 0]

Hi Sputnik

If you have hard proof on something go ahead and post it as fact. I personally think though that posting "your" opinion as the gospel Example "Kerry won by about 15 to 12" is detrimental to the discussion.

I do apologise to you for getting my score wrong it should have been 16 points to Kerry, 6 points to Bush

Who would have guessed it George Bush Junior does own 84 dollars of wood yard to get himself qualified as a small business man for a tax scam.

Quote[/b] ]Timber Update:  

In the middle of its evaluation of Bush-Kerry II, the Hooey from St. Looey, the Scorer's Table warned Mr. Bush during the course of the thirteenth round that if it proved Mr. Kerry was correct in his assertion that the President derived $84 of income from part-ownership of a timber company, the President would be severely sanctioned.

The Scorer's Table, having taken two hours to let the Blogosphere complete its due diligence (and to permit the scorer to retreat to a corner of the room, don cold compresses, and moan quietly), can now quote the truth from "Factcheck.Org": "President Bush himself would have qualified as a 'small business owner' under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." Brooks Jackson's marvelous site noted that the timber interest was listed under "royalties" in his 2002 and 2003 returns, indicating The Texas Thunderbolt still has an interest in said concern.

The point awarded to Mr. Bush in the thirteenth round is hereby withdrawn and awarded to Mr. Kerry, for the latter's enterprising hoisting of his opponent on said opponent's own petard.

Mr. Bush is also penalized three points for a truth foul.

Mr. Bush is further penalized two points for getting snarky while in the act of being factually incorrect.

The thirteenth round, originally scored 2-0 for Mr. Bush, now reverts to a 1-1 draw, and the rounds awarded total now changes from 12 Kerry, 4 Bush, 3 Drawn, to 12 Kerry, 3 Bush, 4 Drawn.

The final points scoring is now adjusted from Kerry 15, Bush 12, to Kerry 16, Bush 6.  The Scorer thus designates the outcome as a Kerry victory outside the margin for statistical error.

The scorer's table reproaches President Bush for not knowing when he has wood.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

The funniest part of the debate was when Kerry claimed that  a timber company pays Bush.

Bush: I own a timber company?

Kerry: (awkward silence)

Bush (to moderator): You wanna buy some wood?´

Yes it sounded like Kerry was claiming that, even to Bush a native speaker of English who should have known better.  Kerry's poorly worded statement was an attempt to present a hypothetical example, so I think most of the audience may have been laughing at Bush for not understanding rather than laughing with him.  And according to the debate rules Kerry had little choice about remaining silent, whether awkward or not.

Actually, it turns out that Kerry was right indeed. From FOX:

Quote[/b] ]

Kerry startled Bush by saying that the president is counted as a small business for tax purposes because he once earned $84 from a timber company he owns.

"I own a timber company?" Bush asked. "That's news to me." Then he paused and added, "Need some wood?"

That baffling exchange arises from an analysis by the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org debunking Bush's claims that Kerry's plans to raise taxes on the richest Americans would increase the tax burden on 900,000 small businesses.

The analysis found that the Bush campaign is counting every rich person who has even $1 of outside business income as a small business owner, even if they have no employees.

The analysis said even Bush qualifies under that definition because he reported $84 in income from his part-ownership of a timber enterprise on his 2001 federal tax return.

[walker 0]

Hi all

George Bush Junior's "I should be taxed as a small business." Tax scam.

Quote[/b] ]Bush's Timber Company

Kerry: The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right.

Bush: I own a timber company?

That's news to me.

Bush's Timber-Growing Company

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." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Actually, it turns out that Kerry was right indeed.

Damn, it really frustrates me sometimes how Kerry can present information in such a muddled fashion.  Why didn't he specifically refer to Bush's tax return?  Why did he dilute his brief statement by mentioning Cheney instead of going into more detail about Bush?

The problem is that Kerry has trouble being concise.  He is not a sound-bite politician.  When I first saw Kerry in a CNN-sponsored debate during the dem primaries there was no strict time limit and he very convincingly mopped the floor with his opponents.

Even if Bush didn't actually have so little to say he would still be far more at home than Kerry with the 120, 90 and 30 second time limit format.

[Bernadotte 0]

Jib Jab have done it again:  Good to be in D.C.

LMAO  

[denoir 0]

Bad news for Kerry:

Australian PM wins fourth term [bBC]

The other guy promised full withdrawal of Aussie troops from Iraq, which would have been a nasty blow to Bush.

Bad news for Bush:

Afghan elections collapse [bBC]

Most presidential candidates are boycotting it since it turns out that the ink used to vote people that already had voted was not water resistant and could be washed off.

As there's no government administration, no records, no communication between the provinces, there is no way of telling who has voted. A good indicator of the problems was that 12 million people had registered to vote while only 10 million were eligible to do so.

Overall, given the chaos in Afghanistan, this comes hardly as a surprise. It would be an overstatement to even call Afghanistan a country. There is no central government and 95% of it is under the control of various war lords. It doesn't even have a basic constitution, a judicial system etc

So there's no way that they were ever ready for an election at this point.

[Blake 0]

At least it seems they've been spared from terror attacks relating to elections...

[kerosene 0]

Its funny, cause Bush said a few months ago and said it again recently,

why bother taxing the rich, they just hire lawyers and accountants to get out of it, so it turns out he was speaking from experience.  

I reckon Kerry didnt follow up on the timber company thing because Bush seemed so sure he didnt have anything to do with it.  I wonder how thry'll spin this?  Mabye say Bushs accountant did it without his knowledge?

The media better go for this, because Kerry would be getting torn apart already if it was the other way around.  It really takes some balls to lie about something that verifiable, on T.V, being broadcast across the world.

Although in fairness i suppose its hard for a millonaire to keep track of small change, that he used to dodge some taxes.

[Bernadotte 0]

Most presidential candidates are boycotting it since it turns out that the ink used to vote people that already had voted was not water resistant and could be washed off.

Even water resistant ink will easily come off if only applied to a small area of dirty skin.  They should have used a simple finger washing/dipping method with invisible ink that only appears under UV light.  Battery operated UV handlamps would have been quite easy to distribute.  This technique is not fool-proof, but it makes it much more difficult for a voter to know if the ink is completely washed off.

[Akira 0]

Who is McCain, a senator?

Sen. John McCain-R Arizona...

He is a Republican but works usually more as an independant. He has Republican leanings, but has no problem crossing the aisle, and he has hundreds of times, to stand with Democrats.

Basically people like him because he truely follows what he believes, and if the party line crosses that, he bucks the party. He also has no trouble saying what he thinks. In my opinion he is the only politician that works on the premise of "common sense."

McCain endured one of the most vicious smear campaigns ever seen when Bush defeated him in the 2000 Repulican primaries. And then Bush's people had the nerve to beg McCain for the VP's role. McCain refused.

Four years later, McCain surprised a lot of people by singing Bush's praises at the RNC. So even McCain has his price.

Yeah. It really makes me sad to see him toeing the line right now when we need a McCain more than ever.

[denoir 0]

Campaign denies device cues Bush

Quote[/b] ]

WASHINGTON — President Bush's tailor on Friday pooh-poohed an Internet conspiracy theory that a long, boxy bulge visible on President Bush's back between his shoulder blades during the first debate could have been some kind of prompting device.

Georges de Paris, who made the suit Bush wore, said the bulge was nothing more than a pucker along the jacket's back seam, accentuated when the president crossed his arms and leaned forward on the lectern. "Like this," he said in a heavy Parisian accent, demonstrating the same effect before a six-way mirror.

Salon writer David Lindorff, who suggested in an online article Friday that presidential adviser Karl Rove might have been feeding Bush answers through some electronic gizmo with an earpiece buried in his ear canal, wasn't convinced.

"There's definitely something under there pushing up through the suit," Lindorff said.

He added that the device wouldn't necessarily have been electronic, since there are magnetic and fiber-optic technologies that can achieve the same effect.

"These gadgets have been around for quite a while," he said. "They just keep getting better and better."

De Paris, who has tailored suits for every American president since Lyndon Johnson, added that the jacket fit Bush very snugly through the shoulders, which may have exaggerated the effect.

Bloggers and conspiracy buffs alike have lined up with Lindorff, insisting that the outline of a wire can be seen leading from the bulge down the president's back on some high-definition monitors.

Lindorff's story quoted Jacob McKenna, a spyware expert, who said there were small microchip-based earpieces that could be pushed so far into the ear canal that they were virtually undetectable.

Mark McKinnon, the media director for the Bush campaign, categorically denied the use of any sort of communication device.

"The truth is not nearly as interesting," McKinnon told MediaChannel.org. "The president has never been assisted by any audio signal."

Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman called the theory "laughable."

"People have too much time on their hands," he said.

Who cares about the bulge? Bush has a FRENCH tailor    

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]And then Bush's people had the nerve to beg McCain for the VP's role. McCain refused.

If McCain knew what he knows now, he would of probably taken it...

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]If McCain knew what he knows now, he would of probably taken it...

Well what might he know now?

BillyBob, you mentioned earlier that the economy doesn't affect you, but how come gay marríages or research with frozen dot of cells do?

[denoir 0]

I noticed one things in the debates that I found interesting: Bush mentioned "Europe" on several occasions, while Kerry insisted on individual nations - even where it was wrong.

For instance the Iran negotiations is an EU effort, but Kerry in both debates said that it was Britain, Germany and France.

Bush on the other hand, said (not seldom in a negative context) "the Europeans.. "in the halls of Europe" etc

Anybody have a suggestion why? I've heard some right-wing nutjobs (Rush Limbaugh IIRC) refering to Kerry as a "Euro-snob" during the primaries - but that was a long time ago.

Also, I find it interesting that Kerry is not mentioning the dollar which has dropped significantly during the Bush administration. Not to mention the fact that US companies are becoming less competitive in the international arena. Now while this certainly isn't all Bush's fault, I'm sure it could be used against him.

[Donnervogel 0]

Also, I find it interesting that Kerry is not mentioning the dollar which has dropped significantly during the Bush administration.

Well at the moment the dollar is not so low that it would hurt the import dependant economy too much. On the other hand it boosts the export sector which is quite strong in the US. Also a lower dollar makes US enterprises more cometitive internationally because they can offer services at lower prices. And since the US has many enterprises that act internationally a lower dollar helps to keep jobs in the US and to get comissions abroad.

[denoir 0]

A Swedish finance minster once said : "Devaluing your currency is like pissing your pants: it's warm and comfortable at first, but very soon it gets cold and unpleasent"

Sure, you boost your exports and become more competitive in the international scene. The goal of any economy however is not primarily increasing exports, but raising the quality of living for the citizens. Relative Europeans, Americans are now 30-40% poorer than they were a few years back. Given the global economy and the massive international trade, this matters a great deal.

American work is now worth considerably less than it was few years ago. America also has a big trade imbalance - meaning that they import more than they export. Hence a drop in the currency hurts more than it does good.

And finally, despite the dollar devaluation, American companies are doing worse than they used to on the international scene. Boeing/Airbus is the classic example - Airbus is doing better.

Also worth noting is that devaluating a currrency doesn't require much work - getting it up from the hole does. Right now the only thing holding the dollar in place are the inflated oil prices. If that breaks (and there is a risk it will since OPEC is seriously debating switching to the Euro as reference currecny), we're talking about a potential collapse of the dollar. If that happens the depression in the 1920's will look like good times.

[theavonlady 2]

And finally, despite the dollar devaluation, American companies are doing worse than they used to on the international scene. Boeing/Airbus is the classic example - Airbus is doing better.

That was a very unclassic example.

Boeing has had miserable management (CEO was kicked out earlier this year), scandals (refuelers deal, hiring from the military), failure to come up with the goods that customers want and an unclear agenda for their next generation civilian plane.

Boeing's headaches have practically nothing to do with currency fluctuations.

[Donnervogel 0]

A Swedish finance minster once said : "Devaluing your currency is like pissing your pants: it's warm and comfortable at first, but very soon it gets cold and unpleasent"

Sure, you boost your exports and become more competitive in the international scene. The goal of any economy however is not primarily increasing exports, but raising the quality of living for the citizens. Relative Europeans, Americans are now 30-40% poorer than they were a few years back. Given the global economy and the massive international trade, this matters a great deal.

American work is now worth considerably less than it was few years ago. America also has a big trade imbalance - meaning that they import more than they export. Hence a drop in the currency hurts more than it does good.

And finally, despite the dollar devaluation, American companies are doing worse than they used to on the international scene. Boeing/Airbus is the classic example - Airbus is doing better.

Also worth noting is that devaluating a currrency doesn't require much work - getting it up from the hole does. Right now the only thing holding the dollar in place are the inflated oil prices. If that breaks (and there is a risk it will since OPEC is seriously debating switching to the Euro as reference currecny), we're talking about a potential collapse of the dollar. If that happens the depression in the 1920's will look like good times.

you know. politicians think maximally 4 years ahead in the US ;)

and yes. Most western countries import more than they export. that's generally a good sign because it means the people are consuming much. And dropping dollar doesn't mean it hurts more. It's more complicated. The import prices hit the consumer. the export prices hit the enterprises. So in short term (4 years thinking cycle) you can get the CEO's of great enterprices to cheer and give you money to get reelected. To the consumer you can just say it's because of Osama the weasels. (of course in longer term it will make the consumer spending less because he's not able to buy more)

Think like a politician