I did.

Well, some of it.

What I thought was most telling was the end of the debate. Not the candidates closing speeches, but the audience's reaction to the candidates.

People flocked towards Bush.

Kerry, on the other hand, went from person to person shaking hands. In some cases, actively crawling over the bleachers (and, perhaps, other people) to shake eveyrbody's hand.

At the beginning of the debate, Bush and Kerry exchanged some words, but I couldn't read their lips fast enough to figure out what they were saying to each other.

At the end of the debate, I didn't get a good view of Kerry's face, but Bush said to Kerry "good job."

So, who do you think won the debate?

Kerry. bush had no specifics. Kerry had facts and figures, and even the public comments of republican senators about Iraq to back him up.

after his abysmal and embarrassing performance in the first debate, all bush basically had to do was show up and string 2 or 3 coherent sentences together to seem like an improvement over last time. he barely managed even that. he also yelled almost the whole time. then at the end of his yelling session, he'd say "thank you for the question," with that fake kind of appreciation.

when Kerry answered the embryonic stem cell question he seemed genuinely empathetic with the woman. bush distorted the facts again, first trying to make it sound like he supports stem cell research, then when Kerry pointed out that most of the stem cell lines we have are not viable and the scientists feel they don't have what they need, bush waffled and said it was about "life" and he didn't support the use of embryonic stem cells.

i won't even comment on that teary-eyed waif they had bring up the abortion issue, except to say that after Kerry detailed his position in a heartfelt and sincere way, bush then distorted his response by saying in effect, "it's either yes or no." that's the main problem with bush, his black-and-white thinking: yes or no, black or white, good or evil, with us or against us. apparently that kind of thinking is typical of untreated alcoholics, which bush is.

bush also totally lied on the environment, saying the air was cleaner now than when he came into office. that just is not true. his own EPA head resigned in protest over what bush was allowing be done to the environment by his corporate donors. bush has been the worst president of the environment we have ever had in modern times, i.e., since people became aware of the damage we are doing and started measuring it. even members of bush's own party say he is the worst:
http://www.independent-media.tv/item...ental%20Impact
and see also:
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000169.php

bush only "won" if you dwell on superficial things like Kerry's makeup not being so great. Kerry had the substance, bush tried to "look tough" and yell a lot, but really had no substance, and no plan. even a couple years after the press conference where he was lambasted for not being able to think of one mistake he has made, he still can't. he had some vague answer about "tactics" and about some people he has appointed who he refused to name. very weak answers, and no acknowledgment, let alone apologies, for his many failures. "no game, no shame." pretty pathetic excuse for a "president," imo.

i think kerry pwnd bush with a couple facts. i wish he brought up the issue of bush classifying CO2 as a non-pollutant. i would have asked him to prove it by tying a plastic bag around his head for ten minutes.

Don't have much to add, but here goes anyway:

I stepped out to walk the dog during part of the debate. I must have missed that part.

Quote:

i won't even comment on that teary-eyed waif they had bring up the abortion issue,

Now, I did see this part. I didn't think she was teary-eyed, or even close to being a waif by appearances. I must have a lower criterior than you, but I thought she looked pretty cute.

Quote:

except to say that after Kerry detailed his position in a heartfelt and sincere way, bush then distorted his response by saying in effect, "it's either yes or no."

Maybe he meant, that that's the way the vote came before Kerry. As a senator, you can't vote "I approve of this only unless this, this and this are true, but not if that, and the other are false." That button doesn't exist in the senate. From what I recall, there's a Yes, a No, and an Abstain. I think what you are talking about (or what Kerry would have wanted) is the infamous line-item veto power that the former president made a case for.

Quote:

that's the main problem with bush, his black-and-white thinking: yes or no, black or white, good or evil, with us or against us. apparently that kind of thinking is typical of untreated alcoholics, which bush is.

So was Winston Churchill. Wondering what your point here is?

Quote:

bush also totally lied on the environment, saying the air was cleaner now than when he came into office. that just is not true. his own EPA head resigned in protest over what bush was allowing be done to the environment by his corporate donors. bush has been the worst president of the environment we have ever had in modern times, i.e., since people became aware of the damage we are doing and started measuring it. even members of bush's own party say he is the worst: http://www.independent-media.tv/item...ental%20Impact and see also: http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000169.php

Haven't visited these sites yet, but I will. I'll just comment on the environment issue (I also missed that part of the debate) with a few grains of knowledge that I picked up in econ class back in college. There exists, unfortunately, a tradeoff between corporate profits and the environment. While, there is some good a company can get for doing a reasonable job of "playing it green" for want of a better term, the operating costs of any business can't absorb running in such a manner as to not have any impact on the environment whatsoever. Moreover; it would be darn near impossible to do, given the inter-connected nature of business with other businesses that may not be as environmentally friendly.

Case in point, the computer you are typing on now is plugged into a power outlet. Chances are good, especially if you are in the same state as me, that the power shipping over those lines comes from burning coal. 19th century technology for a 21st century world. If that's not bad for the environment, I don't know what is.

Solar power, you say?

As I look out the window, it is partly sunny, but I remember it is October. Sometime soon, we will not see the sun again until spring.

Geothermal? It's expensive to drill a well. Imagine having to drill a geothermal well!

Fuel Cell tech-hey that's just a self-contained powerplant running on natural gas, another non-renewable resource.

In election year, the cheapest, and most abundant source (of energy) is still tapped way less than 1%. (My son, Ross.) No, just kidding, but the boy does have a lot of energy. Rather, wind power. Especially with the amound of blow-hards, and spin doctors blowing smoke all over the place. I don't care what you may have heard, it isn't totally environmentally friendly as you may think. if you're ever in sunny CA sometime or even Oregon, you should go see a windmill farm. The ground is basically covered with chopped up birds that get sucked into these things.

Did either candidate talk about moving to alternative energy sources? Maybe this is appropos for those of you who feel that the U.S. got into the war (in Iraq) for oil.

I have already made up my mind on whom I am voting for, and have my passport dusted off should the worst happen.

Quote:

bush only "won" if you dwell on superficial things

I would never presume anybody in a LinuxQuestion forum to be superficial. Otherwise, they'd still be using winblows. Unfortunately, the precedent has been set, typically the American president gets chosen by personal appearance, not by quality. The Kennedy-Nixon debate proved this years ago.

Quote:

like Kerry's makeup not being so great. Kerry had the substance, bush tried to "look tough" and yell a lot, but really had no substance, and no plan. even a couple years after the press conference where he was lambasted for not being able to think of one mistake he has made, he still can't. he had some vague answer about "tactics" and about some people he has appointed who he refused to name. very weak answers, and no acknowledgment, let alone apologies, for his many failures. "no game, no shame." pretty pathetic excuse for a "president," imo.

I don't know, I'm surprised this thread has lasted this long without being closed, etc or devolving into total flamewars.

That being said, allow me to pull out some more flame-fodder. Maybe we shoud start a new thread titled:

"Terrorists Presidential Pick?"

Kyle

here's the transcript:
so first he tries to make it sound like he supports it, and then he turns around and says he only supported it because the stem cell lines already existed anyway. in reality, he does NOT support it. no further lines, no further research under bush.

btw, the embryos that would be used for stem cell research ARE GOING TO BE DESTROYED ANYWAY. they're frozen in nitrogen or whatever they use, and they're either going to be left there frozen, or just disposed of. that's what makes it such b.s.

the vote was on partial birth abortions. Kerry voted no because the bill included provisions that he does not agree with, such as when a teenager is raped by her father and then has to get approval from the father to have the abortion. it's absurd. but there is gw bush, making it a black-and-white issue for all who turn their minds off as soon as they hear the "trigger word."


I knew Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill was a friend of mine. bush, Sir, is no Winston Churchill.



bush is the worst president on the environment the US has ever had. Kerry has the best record in the Senate on environmental issues, and he is deeply committed to protecting the environment. the choice is clear on that issue, imho.

they seem to be doing pretty well under bush. maybe you haven't see the reports showing increased al qaeda recruitment because bush invaded iraq?

some might even remember that after the madrid bombings, a group claiming responsibility and affiliated with al qaeda even gave its outright endorsement to bush, stating in a Reuters story that "it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader 'more foolish than [Bush], who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom.'...'Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.'"
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040317/325/eotq9.html

iran and north korea are also doing pretty well under bush.

there's really no doubt that the US and the entire world would be much better off with Kerry as US president. we really need Kerry. bush is the way of disaster.

Lesser of 2 evils.

Bush needs to finish his mess in the middle east, then Kerry can have the spot..


Cheers

or, kerry can fix bush's mess in the middle east before bush goes and invades another country.

well kerry can tax iraq maybe, and then edwards can file some lawsuits against iran and north korea.

stl just won, yay!

bush is taxing iraq, in much the same way we were taxed by the brits a couple hundred years ago. we are making htem pay for their invasion(protection). and we all know how that turned out...

its better to file a lawsuit than to drop bombs. less expensive and better for the US in the end.

Agreed! What in the world does this have to do with Linux? Don't we get enough of this crap on TV? Thank God that Nov 2nd is almost here!

Well it is an open general forum....we've talked about everything from the World Series, to gas prices, to the election...

I think lawsuits only work on people who believe in a codified legal system of some sort.

When I read this, here's what I imagined in my mind...

Knock on Joe Terrorists' door (I know a guy named Joe, he's not a terrorist, but I don't want to profile anybody by saying Habib the terrorist or whatever, anyhow, back to my point.)

Sir, please sign for this mail.

Joe signs (with a false name, of course.)

Examines the letter from the court.

I'm being sued for hijacking an airplane, and for beheading people?

Pulls out AK47 and blow away the poor postman.

I just don't think suing terrorists will work. I don't think they understand a codified legal system. The only "justice" they understand is whatever belief ascetyized them so much into becoming a terrorist.

Prove to me that suing a known terrorist works.

you could be right, except for one thing

IRAQ IS NOT A TERRORIST NATION, NOR DOES IT HARBOUR TERRORISTS!

...
this has been proved false already. whats his face al-zaqari was harbored...

too much f911 for you ...

This is a discussion about US election, not about Iraq or terrorism. Please keep in on track. Calling a country/nation terrorist is risky and it's against the rules for me.