PDA

View Full Version : Bush: Incapable of debating in town-hall format... Backing out of debate


Taco John
09-07-2004, 11:12 PM
What a pussy...



Ala Drudge:

BUSH TEAM WANTS TWO DEBATES

President Bush may skip one of the three debates that have been proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates... MORE... Bush's negotiating team plans to resist the middle debate, which was to be Oct. 8 in a town meeting format in Missouri // audience of 'undecided voters' for second debate was to be picked by Gallup. Bush officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans, WASH POST planning to report in new editions, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE... Developing...

Taco John
09-07-2004, 11:13 PM
Next they'll be asking if Dick Cheney can hold his hand through the other two...

Ari Chi3fs
09-07-2004, 11:19 PM
well since he has a lead right now, it is a good strategy to dodge debates...


hell he dodged the draft, and I assume on his ranch there is also a Dodge truck.

HutchFan
09-07-2004, 11:26 PM
Bush doesn't need to debate Mr. "Flip-flop" to win. His record as well as Kerry's speak for themselves. I would like to see Mr. Kerry defend his senate record however.

Pitt Gorilla
09-07-2004, 11:30 PM
No way Bush backs out of the debate; that would look uber pussy or incompetent.

Saggysack
09-07-2004, 11:31 PM
Bush doesn't need to debate Mr. "Flip-flop" to win. His record as well as Kerry's speak for themselves. I would like to see Mr. Kerry defend his senate record however.

What would be a better way for him to defend his voting record other than a town hall debate on a national stage?

DanT
09-07-2004, 11:32 PM
There's a big difference between being incapable and being unwilling.

Duck Dog
09-07-2004, 11:36 PM
well since he has a lead right now, it is a good strategy to dodge debates...


hell he dodged the draft, and I assume on his ranch there is also a Dodge truck.

Got proof of that draft dodging charge?




Didn't think so.

Saggysack
09-07-2004, 11:38 PM
Got proof of that draft dodging charge?




Didn't think so.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your claims of GWB admitting to his drug use.

Duck Dog
09-07-2004, 11:46 PM
Really. We all know the wacko's on the left wouldn't do that. I mean they didn't do it at the RNC, did they?

Joe Seahawk
09-07-2004, 11:49 PM
There's a big difference between being incapable and being unwilling.


Exactly.. Some chick in the middle of the debate would probably rip her shirt off revealing her hairy armpits and BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED written on her chest in fake blood, then she'll chant and try to throw blood on him..

I'm not kidding...

Saggysack
09-07-2004, 11:50 PM
Really. We all know the wacko's on the left wouldn't do that. I mean they didn't do it at the RNC, did they?

I dunno about you but I'm not talking about the wacko's on the left. I'm talking about the wacko's on the right.

Ugly Duck
09-07-2004, 11:51 PM
Next they'll be asking if Dick Cheney can hold his hand through the other two...Well... it worked for the 9/11 hearings....

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_whatmeworry.jpg

Duck Dog
09-07-2004, 11:53 PM
I'm still waiting for you to back up your claims of GWB admitting to his drug use.


Maybe I was wrong. I thought GW explained his use of cocain during his first bid as youthful experimentation.

I made that statement a while back. hope you weren't holding your breath that whole time.

Duck Dog
09-07-2004, 11:55 PM
I dunno about you but I'm not talking about the wacko's on the left. I'm talking about the wacko's on the right.

Yeah, and we know there were a lot of them crashing the DNC and making ass's out of themselves.

Duck Dog
09-07-2004, 11:58 PM
BTW, I'm going to bed. So if I don't respond until tomorrow...please don't hold your breath.

Saggysack
09-08-2004, 12:00 AM
Yeah, and we know there were a lot of them crashing the DNC and making ass's out of themselves.

Now now now. Why do you have to bring Zell Miller into this?

the Talking Can
09-08-2004, 12:08 AM
Bush can't speak in unscripted environments... that requires a brain....

Ugly Duck
09-08-2004, 12:15 AM
Bush can't speak in unscripted environments... that requires a brain....We readsss the teleprompter, my Precioussss - we readsss it gooder each time!

DenverChief
09-08-2004, 12:19 AM
We readsss the teleprompter, my Precioussss - we readsss it gooder each time! ROFL

jAZ
09-08-2004, 12:20 AM
Got proof of that draft dodging charge?




Didn't think so.
It's called payroll records... Bush doesn't have any.

Taco John
09-08-2004, 07:39 AM
There's a big difference between being incapable and being unwilling.



Not in this case... Bush couldn't do a 9/11 commission hearing without Cheney on his arm. He was incapable of talking to a congressional fact finding team without someone guiding his answers. Same deal here. He's incapable of handling any curveball that's thrown to him that he might not expect. He is incapable of thinking on his feet. That's why he gets pissed off at press conferences when someone asks him a question that they did not submit beforehand. That's why he sat there dumbfounded and powerless when they told him that America was under attack and he sat there like a wimp. Which is what he is...

George Bush is a wimp. Just like his old man was when he was in office.

Frankie
09-08-2004, 08:19 AM
This is a man who has led a coward's life whose "bravado" is only when others do the sacrifice (see Viet Nam and Iraq). Why wouldn't he take the coward's route on this one too. Why should this be any different than anything else he's done. :shrug:

patteeu
09-08-2004, 08:20 AM
Maybe I was wrong. I thought GW explained his use of cocain during his first bid as youthful experimentation.

I made that statement a while back. hope you weren't holding your breath that whole time.

Yes, you are wrong about that. Bush's position on this issue is "no comment." He won't deny using, but he won't confirm using either.

IMO, he took that position because he didn't want to alienate voters within his own party by admitting it. I can't believe this is a real issue for many democrats (IIRC, every dem presidential candidate this time around admitted to using drugs in the past except Joe Leiberman), it's just something that they hope others will hold against him.

Saggysack, would you be willing to vote for a candidate who had used cocaine or pot in the past? If so, then why does this issue matter to you?

patteeu
09-08-2004, 08:22 AM
It's called payroll records... Bush doesn't have any.

Draft dodging, AWOL, and absent all mean the same thing to you don't they?

Frankie
09-08-2004, 08:23 AM
It's called payroll records... Bush doesn't have any.

There are also ads coming out with folks who actually served in the Alabama unit Bush claims to have served with. Evidently, none of them remember him. ROFL . I have never seen one man building a political career on SO MANY LIES, like this guy.

stevieray
09-08-2004, 08:34 AM
This is a man who has led a coward's life whose "bravado" is only when others do the sacrifice (see Viet Nam and Iraq). Why wouldn't he take the coward's route on this one too. Why should this be any different than anything else he's done. :shrug:


the only coward here is you.

Frankie
09-08-2004, 08:36 AM
the only coward here is you.
Very astute post Stevie. Guess you have nothing else to add.

memyselfI
09-08-2004, 08:42 AM
Ah, Kerry should accept and then invite them to designate a Con to stand in for DUHbya. ROFL

Taco John
09-08-2004, 08:43 AM
Saggysack, would you be willing to vote for a candidate who had used cocaine or pot in the past? If so, then why does this issue matter to you?



It matters because if he tells the truth, some of his constituents might be apt to vote for a third party candidate. Of course.

stevieray
09-08-2004, 08:44 AM
Very astute post Stevie. Guess you have nothing else to add.

what else is there, other than watching you and others cackle like a bunch of women about a guy who could kick your ass.

Saggysack
09-08-2004, 08:44 AM
Saggysack, would you be willing to vote for a candidate who had used cocaine or pot in the past? If so, then why does this issue matter to you?

Without a doubt, yes I would. A man owns up to his past indiscrestions.

Those that either deny or hide their mistakes usually has more skeletons in their closet than what we will ever know.

Taco John
09-08-2004, 08:47 AM
what else is there, other than watching you and others cackle like a bunch of women about a guy who could kick your ass.


ROFL

Whatever. "Soft Hands" Bush couldn't take his old lady...

Matt Helm
09-08-2004, 08:48 AM
It's called payroll records... Bush doesn't have any.

What does your personal accusation that GWB was AWOL have to do with draft dodging? You are one dumb sumbitch.

Matt Helm
09-08-2004, 08:49 AM
There are also ads coming out with folks who actually served in the Alabama unit Bush claims to have served with. Evidently, none of them remember him. ROFL . I have never seen one man building a political career on SO MANY LIES, like this guy.

Haven't been checking skerrys records of late have you?

stevieray
09-08-2004, 08:53 AM
ROFL

Whatever. "Soft Hands" Bush couldn't take his old lady...

He could kick your short ass also.

Taco John
09-08-2004, 08:54 AM
He could kick you short ass also.



ROFL

My "short" ass isn't too scared of a limp wristed cheerleader wimp.

stevieray
09-08-2004, 08:55 AM
ROFL

My "short" ass isn't too scared of a limp wristed cheerleader wimp.

BS.

Taco John
09-08-2004, 08:56 AM
BS = Bush Sucks

jAZ
09-08-2004, 08:56 AM
What does your personal accusation that GWB was AWOL have to do with draft dodging? You are one dumb sumbitch.
You don't pay attention to the news enough to make it worth while. Hell you don't pay attention to the discussion enough.

But one last time... (for the 4th or 5th time)...

Bush's payroll records show he wasn't paid during his "missing months".

Frankie
09-08-2004, 08:56 AM
ROFL

My "short" ass isn't too scared of a limp wristed cheerleader wimp.
ROFL

Frankie
09-08-2004, 09:00 AM
"W" STANDS FOR WIMP.

stevieray
09-08-2004, 09:01 AM
ROFL

Coming from the guy who cries like a baby if someone gives him neg rep, and can't admit he's wrong.

patteeu
09-08-2004, 09:15 AM
Without a doubt, yes I would. A man owns up to his past indiscrestions.

Those that either deny or hide their mistakes usually has more skeletons in their closet than what we will ever know.

What are your thoughts on a man who lives a Cambodian lie for decades and then when caught tries to avoid admitting that mistake by repeatedly shifting the story until it is completely at odds with the original version?

What were your thoughts about a man who used semantic games and his own personal definitions of words like "sex" and "is" to avoid clearly answering simple, straightforward questions?

You're amusing.

Frankie
09-08-2004, 09:16 AM
Coming from the guy who cries like a baby if someone gives him neg rep, and can't admit he's wrong.
Judging by your lack of reply to my ensuing post, should I assume that you agree with me on it?

You know, I'm talking about the "W STANDS FOR WIMP one.

patteeu
09-08-2004, 09:17 AM
It matters because if he tells the truth, some of his constituents might be apt to vote for a third party candidate. Of course.

So in other words, this is a purely political charge that Saggy is making. It has nothing to do with what he thinks is right or wrong, it only has to do with what he thinks might be politically advantageous. That's what I thought.

stevieray
09-08-2004, 09:18 AM
Judging by your lack of reply to my ensuing post, should I assume that you agree with me on it?

You know, I'm talking about the "W STANDS FOR WHIMP one.

dude, you are starting to embarass yourself.

Michael Michigan
09-08-2004, 09:20 AM
dude, you are starting to embarass yourself.

That ship sailed long ago.

patteeu
09-08-2004, 09:21 AM
You don't pay attention to the news enough to make it worth while. Hell you don't pay attention to the discussion enough.

But one last time... (for the 4th or 5th time)...

Bush's payroll records show he wasn't paid during his "missing months".

Speaking of paying attention to the discussion, the subject was draft dodging. That's different than AWOL, which is what you seem to be driving at. But then, AWOL is different than just being merely absent, but that's an argument for another thread.

patteeu
09-08-2004, 09:22 AM
That ship sailed long ago.

ROFL

KCTitus
09-08-2004, 09:22 AM
Speaking of paying attention to the discussion, the subject was draft dodging. That's different than AWOL, which is what you seem to be driving at. But then, AWOL is different than just being merely absent, but that's an argument for another thread.

Oh goodness, you want to actually define the terms...better grab a snickers.

If you stick with it, I'll bet you get a Nazi reference inside of 20 posts.

Taco John
09-08-2004, 09:23 AM
So in other words, this is a purely political charge that Saggy is making. It has nothing to do with what he thinks is right or wrong, it only has to do with what he thinks might be politically advantageous. That's what I thought.



Of course! Are you kidding? Same with the Swift Boat lies. They've proven that no charge is too scurrilous, so long as they can get the media to repeat it and cast doubt on the attackee. That's exactly what this drug is about... Tit for tat. By cast apsersions on Bush's ability to think clearly due to a drug past, they create doubt in the market.

The real question here is why the hell you're so suprised about this.

Michael Michigan
09-08-2004, 09:24 AM
Same with the Swift Boat lies.

Have you read the book?

Taco John
09-08-2004, 09:28 AM
Uh, no. I wouldn't waste my time on a book that has already been proven to be fiction.

If so many of the charges hadn't been proven to be outright lies, I'd have picked it up. But since there are so many that have been proven to be outright falsehoods, I won't waste my time.

Rukdafaidas
09-08-2004, 09:34 AM
Yeah, I bet an anti-war demonstrator from the '60's has never done any drugs. Does this look like a guy that never did any drugs? Hell, I bet he just got done toking on the bong.

http://www.johnfnkerry.com/kerry_photos/300_kerry_arrest.jpg

jettio
09-08-2004, 10:18 AM
I thought Craig Crawford got it right when he said that the $75 million that each candidate is limited to after the conventions is our money, the taxpayers.

Since we are forced to pay for the end of the campaign, the candidates should participate in debates.

Mr. Kotter
09-08-2004, 10:55 AM
From Merriam-Webster.com

Main Entry: in·ca·pa·ble
Pronunciation: (")in-'kA-p&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from in- + capable capable
1 : lacking capacity, ability, or qualification for the purpose or end in view: as a archaic : not able to take in, hold, or keep b archaic : not receptive c : not being in a state or of a kind to admit : INSUSCEPTIBLE d : not able or fit for the doing or performance : INCOMPETENT
2 : lacking legal qualification or power (as by reason of mental incompetence) : DISQUALIFIED

THAT seems to fit John Kerry's state for assuming power as commander in chief, than it does GW's choice to limit the debate.... :hmmm:


:)

patteeu
09-08-2004, 11:00 AM
Of course! Are you kidding? Same with the Swift Boat lies. They've proven that no charge is too scurrilous, so long as they can get the media to repeat it and cast doubt on the attackee. That's exactly what this drug is about... Tit for tat. By cast apsersions on Bush's ability to think clearly due to a drug past, they create doubt in the market.

The real question here is why the hell you're so suprised about this.

You might not think the distinction is worth noting, but I think there is one. The swiftvets care about whether or not JFKerry actually deserved his medals and about whether or not JFKerry lied about them in his Congressional testimony. Those are issues that would impact their voting decision. Drug use is NOT an issue that impacts Saggy's voting decision, he just wants it to impact the decision of others.

It's very similar to the strategy of some gay activists to "out" gay politicians who don't push the right kind of gay rights agenda. I doubt that Saggy would think that it's cool for people to "out" others about their drug use history in general, but when it comes to politics, he throws that value out the window. I recognize that I'm making a presumption about Saggy here, but I believe it is pretty close to reality.

KCWolfman
09-08-2004, 05:04 PM
You realize that Bill Clinton backed out of the same debate at the exact same location during his first term?

Ramble on..

Mr. Kotter
09-08-2004, 05:16 PM
...Ramble on..

I LOVE that song; and that would be a KICK-AZZ theme song for the DC forum.... :hmmm:

patteeu
09-08-2004, 11:03 PM
Just a minor technicality, but you can't "back out" of a debate until after you've agreed to attend in the first place.

Ugly Duck
09-09-2004, 12:18 AM
From Merriam-Webster.com

Main Entry: in·ca·pa·ble INCOMPETENT

lacking legal qualification or power (as by reason of mental incompetence) And you guyz are going to vote for bush anyway. Truly sad.....

Taco John
09-09-2004, 12:42 AM
You might not think the distinction is worth noting, but I think there is one. The swiftvets care about whether or not JFKerry actually deserved his medals and about whether or not JFKerry lied about them in his Congressional testimony. Those are issues that would impact their voting decision. Drug use is NOT an issue that impacts Saggy's voting decision, he just wants it to impact the decision of others.

It's very similar to the strategy of some gay activists to "out" gay politicians who don't push the right kind of gay rights agenda. I doubt that Saggy would think that it's cool for people to "out" others about their drug use history in general, but when it comes to politics, he throws that value out the window. I recognize that I'm making a presumption about Saggy here, but I believe it is pretty close to reality.


I don't see a value in your comparison...

The swift vets lied in order to cast aspersions... They got caught lying just to impact the decision of others. They're not voting for Kerry no matter what they can drag up. They just want to make certain that you don't either.

You are right. I don't find the distinction worth noting.

patteeu
09-09-2004, 05:59 AM
I don't see a value in your comparison...

The swift vets lied in order to cast aspersions... They got caught lying just to impact the decision of others. They're not voting for Kerry no matter what they can drag up. They just want to make certain that you don't either.

You are right. I don't find the distinction worth noting.

The allegation that Kerry lied/exagerated wrt Vietnam atrocities wasn't a lie. Do you think the swiftvets don't care about that in the same way that Saggy doesn't care about prior drug use?

It doesn't really matter whether you value the distinction or not. It still exists and for those who aren't about throwing mud in both political directions, it is a meaningful one.

KCWolfman
09-10-2004, 11:10 AM
Seems like GWB has rescheduled the debate.

Baby Lee
09-10-2004, 11:31 AM
Uh, no. I wouldn't waste my time on a book that has already been proven to be fiction.
Feel free to post that like you believe it. Just don't post it like it's true.