Thread Options 
|
#255281 - 10/12/04 04:23 PM
Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The deciding moment of clarity in evaluating and determining the candidates' positions on issues came during the second debate -- the Town Hall forum held at Washington University in St. Louis on October 8, 2004 -- when a young woman asked Senator Kerry whether taxpayer funds would be used to fund abortion if he is elected.
Senator Kerry took the entire 90 seconds to explain that he respected the woman's question; that he, Senator Kerry had been raised a Catholic (presumably implying that abortion is forbidden by the Catholic Church) and that he had been an alter boy; then at the close of a difficult-to- discern 90-second response he stated that he could "not deny" the right of abortion on the basis of affordability -- meaning the answer was "yes", he would use public funds to fund abortions.
President Bush, in his rebuttal, took 11 seconds to reply, "I had a hard time trying to decipher his answer". Then the president said categorically, "I will not use public funds to pay for abortions".
It was at that point that I realized that the issue was not the candidates' position on abortion; the issue was how succinctly, honestly and directly would each leader answer the question. Would the candidate state a sometimes-waffling position and hard-to-comprehend answer in a 90-second reply; or would the candidate provide an unmistakeable answer taking 11 seconds.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255283 - 10/12/04 05:10 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,275
Quadrupletville, Texas
|
Go Bush-Cheney '04
_________________________
"I don''t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." - - Will Rogers (still relevant today)
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255284 - 10/12/04 05:13 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,858
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
Quote:
Senator Kerry had been raised a Catholic (presumably implying that abortion is forbidden by the Catholic Church) and that he had been an alter boy
wow, he was a cathoilc altar boy in Boston...hhhmmm, isn't that where most of the church scandal took place? Maybe now we know what is behind his inability to stay with an issue...
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255286 - 10/12/04 05:40 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,858
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
Quote:
'When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again'...
I think I saw him on Benny Hinn the other night...
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255290 - 10/12/04 06:49 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,608
Near the Land of Enchantment
|
I had the opportunity (and privilege!) to go to a Bush rally and hear the President speak yesterday. He's from this area, as you know, so he was speaking to a lot of long time friends and supporters. You'd expect some differences in the message to this group of people wouldn't you?
Not Mr. Bush. His message was the same. He tells you his position on an issue, what he's done to effect change or improvement on that issue in the past (that list is substantial and impressive), and what else he'd like to do for further improvement or change. The message and stance doesn't change with the tides, or winds, or interests of the audience, or the media.
I heard several people, who had come to the rally to see a real live President in their tiny hometown, say that he had convinced them to vote for him. One comment, from a lifelong Democrat, was that if that's what the Republican party and President Bush was about, then he (the commenter) must be a Republican.
_________________________
Opinions my own.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255291 - 10/12/04 07:15 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,164
|
Quote:
If he expects to win, he'd better!  
I sincerely hope that there is some truth to that. The choice seems so clear this time around. I'll even say that the demo's deserve a fair shot, normally, as a lot of Americans truely believe in the party, but this time is very different, this time there is Kerry and Edwards, this time the demos are not offering up candidates that even the demos are comfortable with.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255292 - 10/12/04 08:39 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
100 Club
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 193
Wisconsin
|
I really appreciated the passion Bush showed in the last debate. The look on his face to the answers Kerry gave were priceless! If Kerry even half understood what the President has dealt with the past 4 years. Of course a lot of issues didn't get the monies and attention they originally were going to have, but that's because the terrorists attacked us and we had to prioritize! I appreciate the effort, thought, planning, devotion, guts, and prayers the President has given to America. Now if I can just hold my breath for the next three weeks without passing out, I'll be happy to spend the next 4 years under his leadership.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255295 - 10/12/04 09:11 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
I really appreciated the passion Bush showed in the last debate. The look on his face to the answers Kerry gave were priceless! If Kerry even half understood what the President has dealt with the past 4 years. Of course a lot of issues didn't get the monies and attention they originally were going to have, but that's because the terrorists attacked us and we had to prioritize! I appreciate the effort, thought, planning, devotion, guts, and prayers the President has given to America. Now if I can just hold my breath for the next three weeks without passing out, I'll be happy to spend the next 4 years under his leadership.
I agree 110%. I know in my heart that just as Ronald Reagan is remembered as one of our most beloved and effective presidents, so will George W. Bush. Lets not forget how shocked many people were, and how afraid of retribution they were when Reagan first demanded that Gorbie tear down the wall and referred to the USSR as an evil empire. Not everyone believed it was the RIGHT thing to do, but in retrospect it was.
I like the fact that right or wrong, George Bush makes decisions, he doesn't hem and haw or waiver, he says what he believes and follows through.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255297 - 10/12/04 10:37 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,044
The banana bin
|
That's interesting...I knew exactly what Kerry was saying. In fact, he said exactly what I felt.
I did have to laugh out loud that Bush couldn't decipher it. (It was a laugh of derision by the way).
_________________________
My opinions are definately my own. I could be wrong. But I don't think so.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255298 - 10/13/04 02:28 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Gold Star
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 274
New England
|
If he said what you felt, why didn't the senator just state it succinctly, bravely, and with conviction -- instead of rambling and meandering? Why not just say, "Yes, I support taxpayer-funded abortions". That would seem to be the courageous approach.
Liberals, for some reason, have an underlying need to obfuscate and almost misrepresent their true positions, instead of just bravely, confidently stating what they stand for.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255299 - 10/13/04 02:34 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
the issue was how succinctly, honestly and directly would each leader answer the question. Would the candidate state a sometimes-waffling position and hard-to-comprehend answer in a 90-second reply; or would the candidate provide an unmistakeable answer taking 11 seconds.
Like Bush did when asked about the mistakes he has made..
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255300 - 10/13/04 03:04 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
That's interesting...I knew exactly what Kerry was saying. In fact, he said exactly what I felt.
I did have to laugh out loud that Bush couldn't decipher it. (It was a laugh of derision by the way).
Only someone who is so entrenched in their support for Kerry that they could not be moved with a tractor could possibly say with a straight face that they knew exactly what he was saying. Your derision for Bush was there and has continued to be there since well before the 2000 election--am I correct? Derision?? Derission??? Bush answered the question. KERRY, IN TRUE WASHINGTON DC INSIDER FASHION DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION!!
Here is what he said:
DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?
KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.
First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.
But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.
But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.
But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.
Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.
That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.
You'll help prevent AIDS.
You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.
You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.
GIBSON: Mr. President, minute and a half.
BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that.
My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.
This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America.
I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban.
I think there ought to be parental notification laws. He's against them.
I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
In other words, if you're a mom and you're pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one. My opponent was against that.
These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America. I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life.
I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion.
And we need to promote maternity group homes, which my administration has done.
Culture of life is really important for a country to have if it's going to be a hospitable society.
Thank you.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255301 - 10/13/04 03:12 AM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
the issue was how succinctly, honestly and directly would each leader answer the question. Would the candidate state a sometimes-waffling position and hard-to-comprehend answer in a 90-second reply; or would the candidate provide an unmistakeable answer taking 11 seconds.
Like Bush did when asked about the mistakes he has made..
Kerry won't even tell us what he has been doing since 1968, much less if he made any mistakes while doing it. WHAT A JOKE!!! When has Kerry ever admitted a mistake?
I HAVE SOME DEBATE QUESTIONS FOR MR. KERRY INVOLVING MISTAKES:
Was it a mistake to shoot a young fleeing Vietnamese soldier in the back?
Was it a mistake to say that torture, rape and murder were the norm in Vietnam while our troops were in harm's way and fellow soldiers were being held captive?
Was it a mistake to say that Saddam was a threat and must be removed for our country's safety?
Was it a mistake to be an opportunist while in Vietnam?
Was it a mistake to ask to leave Vietnam after 3 minor playground injuries?
Was it a mistake to choose for a vice president a man who has made his fortune by suing doctors using junk science that has been disproved?
Was it a mistake to join an organization that discussed the assassination of world leaders?
Was it a mistake to throw someone else's medals on the White House lawn?
Were your consistent votes against our military just mistakes?
Is your 20 year record as one of the most liberal politicians in the US a mistake?
IN FACT, MR. KERRY, HAVE YOU EVER MADE A MISTAKE IN YOUR LIFE???
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255302 - 10/13/04 09:53 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,044
The banana bin
|
Quote:
Only someone who is so entrenched in their support for Kerry that they could not be moved with a tractor could possibly say with a straight face that they knew exactly what he was saying. Your derision for Bush was there and has continued to be there since well before the 2000 election--am I correct? Derision?? Derission???
Whoa, Nelly. You act like I've been on these boards for years spouting off at the mouth.
Nope. First day (yesterday) giving my opinions.
That being said, let me correct you on something. I supported Bush at the start of the war. I believed him wholeheartedly. I defended him when I discussed him during friendly debates with my friends.
To clarify: this is not entrenched. There also, certainly, was no derision.
To further explain, Kerry said exactly what I believe. It's about more than abortion at hand. He feels, as I do, that my personal moral convictions should never impugne on yours. So while abortion is a very heavily emotional, moral, and ethical debate, personal morals should not be brought into it. Instead (as Kerry alluded to further) the Constitution should be interpreted free of personal convictions and interpreted legally.
So, while Bush and his entrenched followers claim they couldn't understand it (whether it be because of ADD or their entrenched idealogies blocking the comprehension), others could plainly see what his message was.
_________________________
My opinions are definately my own. I could be wrong. But I don't think so.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255303 - 10/13/04 10:16 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
To further explain, Kerry said exactly what I believe. It's about more than abortion at hand. He feels, as I do, that my personal moral convictions should never impugne on yours. So while abortion is a very heavily emotional, moral, and ethical debate, personal morals should not be brought into it. Instead (as Kerry alluded to further) the Constitution should be interpreted free of personal convictions and interpreted legally.
If this is indeed the case, the murder of someone who spits on your lawn should not be illegal, as it is a clear interpretation of a moral value. The unborn children being murdered by abortionists deserve just as much protection as the ugly man tying his shoe in front of your home. The only difference is that the ugly man tying his shoe has more ability to protect himself without the aid of government than the child.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#255305 - 10/13/04 10:27 PM
Re: Bush and Kerry: 90 seconds versus 11 seconds
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
To further explain, Kerry said exactly what I believe. It's about more than abortion at hand. He feels, as I do, that my personal moral convictions should never impugne on yours. So while abortion is a very heavily emotional, moral, and ethical debate, personal morals should not be brought into it. Instead (as Kerry alluded to further) the Constitution should be interpreted free of personal convictions and interpreted legally.
Anon is right, Kerry did not answer the question and your explanation makes that clear. The person asking the question just wanted to know about federal dollars being spent for abortions and Kerry goes on and on about being a Catholic...praying while in the war...etc, etc, etc. You may have understood the answer, but he apparently did not understand the question. Or am I wrong? If so, tell me what Kerry said about federal dollars funding abortions. 
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index