Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Presidential Debates Set

Posted by pudge on from the yaaaaay dept.

The debates are set, there will be four of them: Sept. 30, Oct. 8, and Oct. 13, and Oct. 5 for the VPs. All are at 9 p.m. Eastern. Get more details and read the memorandum of understanding (it is unreadable in Preview for me, I had to use Acrobat). There's not much different in here than in previous years. Says CNN: "A senior Kerry source said the Bush campaign was 'hung up' over whether a light or something audible like a buzzer would be used to tell the candidates when their time is up. A Bush official acknowledged that last-minute questions, mostly over the time cue issue, held up the agreement." In related news, it appears the first debate proposed by the truly nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission, scheduled for this Wednesday in Columbus, isn't going to happen.

3 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The debates could be very good for Kerry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    People seem to feel that, whether or not they agree with what Bush says, he seems very forward in his message and they feel like they have a good idea what to expect if he served another term.


    Yes, proceed to fuck the country and world up even worse than he has already, the ignorant, arrogant bastard.

    Record deficits, financial mismanagement, complete and total bungling of Iraq and the war on terror, abbandonment of 'little government' conservatism for taleban/ashcroft style religious zealotry. The list goes on. It's time we dumped the turkey.
  2. Re:The debates could be very good for Kerry by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    A large part of a Politician's job is public speaking so I would expect him to at least sound like he knew what he was talking about.

    And Bush does this all the time, its the gaffs you hear.

    I also expect some knowledge of law

    And what evidance do you have Bush has no knowledge of the law?

    but hey I could be "misunderestimating" him.

    Wow something he said once, and has been recycled over and over agin...

    My question is why did you even bother to ask "is he dumb"> YOu obvioulsy are pretty sure he is. The reason I believe you asked is so you did not look like a partisan knee padder, try harder next time..

    --
  3. Re:bush is hard to beat by revscat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Number 1: Learn to spell, you idiot. "Evidence", mmmk?

    Number 2: What exactly has been contradicted? That Bush is a religious zealot who would rather bankrupt the nation than do anything politically brave? That both Iraq and Afghanistan are turning into terrorist havens, largely due to the incompetence and ideological fervor of people like Douglas Feith, Dick Cheney, and even your lord and savior himself? That given the opportunity to do something brave during the Vietnam war, he instead chose to use his family's connections and take a cushy National Guard post, defending Texas from the threat that was Mexico? Or perhaps the guy who sat next to lady Laura at the State of the Union address last year, Ahmed Chalabi, turned out to be a goddammed Iranian spy, and just might be responsible for tricking us into war?

    Responsiblity? Screw that. Party first! GOP! GOP! The Republican party can do no wrong, EVER, especially if it is politically damaging.

    Go fuck yourself, loser. You support a man whose every policy decision has been wrong, who has bankrupted the nation, deceived it, and stubbornly refused to admit any culpability whatsoever for no better reason than it would be politically damaging to do so.

    And that is no reason whatsoever.

    And what do the conservatives offer up in defense? "Dan Rather sucks!" "Liberals suck!" "Liberals do the same thing!"

    No, see, Democrats WIN wars. Republicans fuck shit up and Democrats have to clean up after them.

    Fucktard.

    Oh, and let me give you an idea for an opening response: "You're just a Bush hater." But whatever you do, don't address any actual issues.