View Full Version : Bush debate video
flip-flopper in chief in action... (http://www.dccc.org/NR/rdonlyres/C743793B-5D18-4A4D-A057-952882054D8E/0/DebateDesperationDone.wmv)
rather amusing, if partisan, look @ bush and his debate statements and their contradictions...
:rofl
oldsk00l
10-04-04, 09:48 PM
Some of it is out of context, BUT, where they did research to contradict what he's been stating they did a very good and informative job with.
Even in lieu of that though, there are a few things you can count on with Bush that you don't know where Kerry stands.
Honestly I think Bush just hesitates, his brain=mush, and he makes mistakes in saying stuff.
However, he did make an ass out of himself, and the way he did so - there is no excuse for that.
"mixed messages" and his are indeed, mixed.
"Like a huge tax gap, and it's just *anyway*"
Son Goku
10-04-04, 09:59 PM
BTW, looking at Bush's Brain, there is a quote given by a former member of the Texas legislator concerining his dealings with Bush. Basically, as was mentioned in the book, Rove coached Bush on many things. And in many cases this legislator mentioned conversations he had with Bush where Bush seemed to only be aware of the perspective that Bush's inner circle (such as Rove) provided.
The legislator mentioned that in some of the conversations, when he provided another view to then govenor Bush, his position in some cases changed as he had formerly seemed to be kept uninformed. He had more to say about some of his personal conversations with Bush on various issues, and how Bush genuinely didn't seem informed on certain things. This, with his inner circle could account for some things...
Rakeesh
10-05-04, 12:24 AM
The things that the left claim that bush flip flops on are quite anecdotal at best. Watch and compare, you'll see exactly what I mean.
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC082304.wmv
If you pay attention to whats in the video you can clearly see that Kerry is only trying to say what people want to hear at any given moment. The guy really has no direction, hence he truely is a flip flopper, in contrast to Bush.
If you pay attention to whats in the video you can clearly see that Kerry is only trying to say what people want to hear at any given moment.A truer statement couldn't be made. That's what I like about Bush from a public speaking perspective. I like the fact that he doesn't come across perfectly polished, rehearsed and pseudo-tanned. I agree that some of Bush's pauses were too long but some pause tells me that he's speaking with candor. Keep in mind that he can't spout out everything he might like to...the man is privy to quite a bit of classified information that he has to tip-toe around.
But yes, Kerry came across to me as an appeaser and provided very vague "answers" such as "I'll do it better"...wow, how profound...anyone could say that and provide that as an answer as to how, exactly, one would do something better. :D
The things that the left claim that bush flip flops on are quite anecdotal at best. Watch and compare, you'll see exactly what I mean.
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC082304.wmv
If you pay attention to whats in the video you can clearly see that Kerry is only trying to say what people want to hear at any given moment. The guy really has no direction, hence he truely is a flip flopper, in contrast to Bush.
good on you for pointing this out :cool:
wrt bush, just coz you say he doesn't flip-flop doesn't make it so...
he has a history of changing his position and of saying things that contradict what he himself said just a little while before...
many of the statements that kerry flip-flops are anecdotal at best... there are a few choice phrases and comments that are used over and over and over... note bush during the debate... he tried very very hard to get leverage on the flip-flopper issue but w/o the use of selective, out of context quotes and imagery that his attack ads have it became a very tired rhetoric...
this doesn't imply that kerry doesn't flip-flop... just he is not as chronic a flip-flopper as the RNC and bush and rove would have one believe...
it is the same with bush but in reverse... bush has a long history of saying one thing and doing another and changing his reasons for that thing as he proceeds to suit the "new" goals...
when he says "I have a strong resolve", is it about the goal he initially stated, or the one he stated in hte middle, or something he stated @ the end?
That's what I like about Bush from a public speaking perspective. I like the fact that he doesn't come across perfectly polished, rehearsed and pseudo-tanned. I agree that some of Bush's pauses were too long but some pause tells me that he's speaking with candor.
long pauses are usually not a positive sign.. especially when it is obvious that the person is thinking of something to say to fill the gap... a couple of times during the debate bush stuck his hand up and looked urgently @ lehrer as if he had something profound to say... and followed with sever seconds of "um... uh... um"
I know you like these brilliant and less-than-polished moments about bush but personally speaking that is a little scary... it is part of his personality and shows his indecisiveness... its basically the same thing he did when the WTC was being attacked... he just sat there with the same expressions he had on his face during the debate...
But yes, Kerry came across to me as an appeaser and provided very vague "answers" such as "I'll do it better"...wow, how profound...anyone could say that and provide that as an answer as to how, exactly, one would do something better. :D
you are right clay... it does sound like an appeaser from your description...
however the debate that i watched had kerry actually explaining clearly what steps he would take in order to reverse some of the decisions that bush had undertaken that had not yielded significant results...
he explained exactly how he would do things in order to move things along from the current position... bush did not...
bush floundered as can also be seen in the clip posted @ the beginning of this thread...
both of them fudged up "facts" to support their positions so they are both guilty of it (kerry for expenses and the claim that osama was in tora bora, bush wrt poland, the iraq-al qaeda links, iraq's army... and both had other statements that were far from true)
Holy Smoke
10-05-04, 01:02 PM
So, now we have TWO flip-floppers (a buzzword I'm seriously starting to hate) fighting for the title of the world's most powerful man.
That's just great...
there have always been 2 flip-floppers in this campaign...
politicians invariably change positions... it is expected...
the bush campaign made the pre-emptive move to slander kerry with the flip-flop label and they mucked enough sh!t till it stuck and the media has run with it...
kerry can't very well say bush flip-flops when the media is asking him to defend against the flip-flop charges now can he...
this is why the debates are important, because america gets to see kerry and bush directly... kerry was able to answer the flip-flop charges and did so in a believable manner, bush otoh did not make a good argument of his leadership skills... tbh I had expected a far better performance out of bush but as is evident from the clip I posted, he just wallowed around and said the same thing over and over again ad nauseum...
I know some people like a flip-flopper who waffles and wallows around with a petulant look on his face but it did genuinely worry me... I have never seen bush as indecisive as this, even against gore...
sytaylor
10-05-04, 01:30 PM
If someones mind can be changed its a good thing (tm). I don't see what the issue is here, negative campiagning sucks...
Riptide
10-05-04, 01:37 PM
kerry can't very well say bush flip-flops when the media is asking him to defend against the flip-flop charges now can he...Well why not? He could just document these flip flops and then make his own commercial(s). Or, perhaps be a little aggressive when he's being questioned regarding his own flip-flops (sounds like we're talking about shoes here) and make the statement that Bush is more of a flip-flopper and outline his case. I don't think he's paralyzed here...
Holy Smoke
10-05-04, 01:41 PM
I was just being sarcastic/annoying... There's nothing wrong with being a "flip-flopper", as long the person in question has good reasons for it.
Like I said, it's just a buzzword that's used to make the opposition look bad, regardless of any reasons that may have affected that particular person's opinions. It's always been an idiotic ploy, and I'm sick of people acting like it has any worth.
It's cheap.
I partly agree with you Holy Smoke. There realy isn't anything wrong with flip-flopping and that is why I have never called Kerry a flip-flopper. Kerry's problem is having two pisitions on the same subject and that is called pandering. All politicians to this to an extent but Kerry does it at such a rediculous level.
Riptide
10-05-04, 02:03 PM
Changing your mind a few times is fine. I guess it's just a matter of degree.
If someone changes their position 58 different times then what are we supposed to think? It's hard to nail down what that person really believes in that case and makes it look like they lean whichever direction the wind happens to be blowing that day.
long pauses are usually not a positive sign.. especially when it is obvious that the person is thinking of something to say to fill the gap... a couple of times during the debate bush stuck his hand up and looked urgently @ lehrer as if he had something profound to say... and followed with sever seconds of "um... uh... um"I agree that some of Bush's pauses were too long but some pause tells me that he's speaking with candor. Keep in mind that he can't spout out everything he might like to...the man is privy to quite a bit of classified information that he has to tip-toe around.
I know you like these brilliant and less-than-polished moments about bush but personally speaking that is a little scary... it is part of his personality and shows his indecisiveness... its basically the same thing he did when the WTC was being attacked... he just sat there with the same expressions he had on his face during the debate...I agree that some of Bush's pauses were too long but some pause tells me that he's speaking with candor. Keep in mind that he can't spout out everything he might like to...the man is privy to quite a bit of classified information that he has to tip-toe around.
you are right clay... it does sound like an appeaser from your description...
however the debate that i watched had kerry actually explaining clearly what steps he would take in order to reverse some of the decisions that bush had undertaken that had not yielded significant results...I'll check the transcript. I do recall him explaining how he'll pull money out of...where exactly? ...to do this and that...and to "do it better". That just cracked me up to think that some people swallow that kind of "solution" hook/line/sinker.
he explained exactly how he would do things in order to move things along from the current position... bush did not...Nah, he didn't always explain exactly how he would do things. He gave some trite rhetoric that people want to hear...that doesn't count in my book.
both of them fudged up "facts" to support their positions so they are both guilty of it (kerry for expenses and the claim that osama was in tora bora, bush wrt poland, the iraq-al qaeda links, iraq's army... and both had other statements that were far from true)Yep, like Kerry going back in time (and geographic shift mind you) by claiming to have been at KGB HQ at Treblinka Square. Treblinka was a Nazi death camp in Poland, nowhere near Moscow. And Kerry said the NYC subway had to close during the Rep National Convention. This is news to TV station NY1 which reports the subway never closed.
I agree that some of Bush's pauses were too long but some pause tells me that he's speaking with candor. Keep in mind that he can't spout out everything he might like to...the man is privy to quite a bit of classified information that he has to tip-toe around.
that is a convenient excuse clay... come on, both candidates had weeks to prepare for the debates... they both knew what kind of topics were going to be raised and as president I seriously doubt bush would not be able to come up with a response to the questions asked rather than "stay the course" and "my opponent is a flip-flopper"...
he basically said what he does in his campaign stops, which is not much...
I agree that some of Bush's pauses were too long but some pause tells me that he's speaking with candor. Keep in mind that he can't spout out everything he might like to...the man is privy to quite a bit of classified information that he has to tip-toe around.
as I said about... its a convenient excuse... bush should have been prepared... this was a foreign policy debate and this should have been bush's strength since he claims he has a better foreign policy and has been attacking kerry for months...
we don't need classified information... we just need information that makes sense...
wrt candor... the grimmaces and the pauses and the re-formulation of sentences on a continuous basis was not a sign of candor to me... it was the sign of a man who had run out of things to say after the choice sound-bites we have all heard numerous times on television...
whats that saying? fool me once, shame on... shame on you... fool me... you can't get fooled again
I'll check the transcript. I do recall him explaining how he'll pull money out of...where exactly? ...to do this and that...and to "do it better". That just cracked me up to think that some people swallow that kind of "solution" hook/line/sinker.
this was a foreign policy debate... kerry explained how he would handle the different situations... naturally neither party is going to reduce expenses... it is counter-productive to their ideals (money is a common theme between the parties)
wrt bush, how exactly does he plan to pay for the ballistic missle defense system that he proposed and brought up a couple of times... pentagon officials have said that it is going to be obsolete by the time it is implemented due to advances in technology... or of getting the 6 party talks to work... in a year and a half, the 6 party talks have regressed if anything...
I have as hard a time swallowing that as much as I have a hard time believing some of kerry's proposals... but bush has already gone through some of his phantom improvements... will kerry really do worse?
Nah, he didn't always explain exactly how he would do things. He gave some trite rhetoric that people want to hear...that doesn't count in my book.
bush has not explained anything so far... and he is the one who has led us into war on 2 fronts... @ the moment kerry is further along wrt planning than bush has been in my book...
Yep, like Kerry going back in time (and geographic shift mind you) by claiming to have been at KGB HQ at Treblinka Square. Treblinka was a Nazi death camp in Poland, nowhere near Moscow. And Kerry said the NYC subway had to close during the Rep National Convention. This is news to TV station NY1 which reports the subway never closed.
yes... this was something I was surprised more people did not pick up on :)
he was in lubyanka but obviously all that medication he had for cancer seems to have gone to his head...
Riptide
10-05-04, 04:16 PM
whats that saying? fool me once, shame on... shame on you... fool me... you can't get fooled again
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. :)
Here is the problem with points of view like sazar's, such as it is. You have to ignore what Kerry actualy said and focus on purely superficial aspects which is what he won on. Kerry did not make any valid points and did not win any points. He had blatent lies that were used as facts such as the KGB headquarters name.
The problem is and sazar doesn't get this is that we are upset that Bush did not go after these factual errors. You could see Bush was pissed that Kerry said them and he knew Kerry was wrong but he did nothing about it and that was the problem. I out lined a few replies that the president could have used.
Now here is one thing that sazar keeps on spouting out that is wrong just like he keep saying there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq pre-war and then he was proven wrong and that is that the administration took troops away from Afghanistan. This is a lie and one that sazar keeps spouting. General Tommy Franks said they DID NOT take troops away from Afghanistan and he was in charge of BOTH offensives. He had the plan and the numbers that he wanted in each place. Either way we have more forces in Afghanistan today than when we won that front and the same is true with Iraq. Paul Bremer (who is touted in sazar's little crusade to oppose our troops) said he is now happy with the troop level in Iraq but hacks like sazar love to hear "bad" news and love to be monday morning quater backs. There is nothing cowardly in my opinion but what would you expect?
Why do we even bother with this Saz? :) We obviously have different opinions on this. I try to think that I can get something productive out of the PF by hearing the other side...and trying to sincerely learn from that. I think I do at times. For the most part, however, I just find myself shaking my head and I really, really try to keep my ego and "I'm-right-you're-wrong-ness" in check. It just seems pointless. I've been trying to stay out of the PF more lately, just too many better things to do. :)
I'm just ready to stomach some more debates and then go vote and be done with it.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. :)
He was trying to make fun of the president because he mangled that saying. It is sazar's and the left's favorite thing, making fun of conservative's intelligence. :rolleyes:
Why do we even bother with this Saz? :) We obviously have different opinions on this. I try to think that I can get something productive out of the PF by hearing the other side...and trying to sincerely learn from that. I think I do at times. For the most part, however, I just find myself shaking my head and I really, really try to keep my ego and "I'm-right-you're-wrong-ness" in check. It just seems pointless. I've been trying to stay out of the PF more lately, just too many better things to do. :)
I'm just ready to stomach some more debates and then go vote and be done with it.
This is why I don't really debate anymore and just point out how stupid liberals are. :nanahump: There isn't any use in debating them. I just like to make fun of them and then they act as if they are so above that sort of tactic. LMAO! Give me a break!
Kerry did not make any valid points and did not win any points.That's how I saw it, only that Kerry "looked better" in doing so.
He had blatent lies that were used as facts such as the KGB headquarters name.That could be more of just a mis-speak and not so much a lie...I mean, he's obviously not going to really try and convince someone that the KGB headquarters name has changed. :) He just messed up. I think the much more egregious statement he made (which is intended to deceive and lie IMO) was that of the subway incident that...gosh...never happened. :rofl
Why do we even bother with this Saz? :) We obviously have different opinions on this. I try to think that I can get something productive out of the PF by hearing the other side...and trying to sincerely learn from that. I think I do at times. For the most part, however, I just find myself shaking my head and I really, really try to keep my ego and "I'm-right-you're-wrong-ness" in check. It just seems pointless. I've been trying to stay out of the PF more lately, just too many better things to do. :)
I'm just ready to stomach some more debates and then go vote and be done with it.
:beer:
fair nuff...
Riptide
10-05-04, 04:29 PM
That's how I saw it, only that Kerry "looked better" in doing so.And that right there will win some points. Shows you how much value people place in appearances.
That's how I saw it, only that Kerry "looked better" in doing so.
Yes that is how I saw it also.
That could be more of just a mis-speak and not so much a lie...I mean, he's obviously not going to really try and convince someone that the KGB headquarters name has changed. He just messed up. I think the much more egregious statement he made (which is intended to deceive and lie IMO) was that of the subway incident that...gosh...never happened.
You are right. I think he just confused that with a german concentration camp in Poland when he was in Cambodia. LMAO! Seriously I am sure you are right but Bush should have jumped on that.
ya the subway thing was funny and the body armor. Just a simple "but you voted against the bill that would have given them that armor and inspite of your vote we got them that armor" It is zingers like that that can win a debate.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.