Did Kerry Cheat?

[Cadaver]

Now granted the source I'm using is biased, but it's been all over the net this weekend.

 

The rules clearly were the candidates could bring nothing to the podiums.

Cheat Sheet

 

*edit*

After much perusal of the video's, I myself believe it is merely a pen.

However, even if it was a pen, Kerry still clearly broke the rules.

I am not saying he is not a great debator, heck I consider him a Master Debator ,

but it does show some character of the man when he can't even follow the simplest of rules.

[shakhak]

It's not that you absolutly can't have those things, official staff must place them on the podium. I am sure everyone knew he had a pen and that the podium had paper placed on it before the debate, for his note taking.

[pae]

Next they'll be complaining that Kerry brought a brain.

 

[CripDyke]

Yep. Any evidence that staff DIDN'T leave a pen for Kerry?

 

 

Cuz I'd love to nail that Kerry. I mean, this weekend there was a 15 page article in the NY Times about how Bush clearly lied about whether or not me & my family were gonna die in a mushroom cloud. All based on the public record of congressional hearings and public speeches, with some additional corroborating detail by official documents.

 

It's clearly been reported with unequivocal accuraccy that he promised the city of NY 20 billion in aid after 9/11 then didn't even request that much from congress, much less fight to try to get that much, much lesser fight to deliver that much. In fact, he clearly said he was going to do that & then fought to limit how much was given to NYC to much less than 20B. That's only the public word of the president and the historical facts of his budget requests and public actions of his administration.

 

Then of course it's been well reported that Bush's Florida campaign manager Katharine Harris (also the Boss of the Head of Florida Elections in Nov/Dec 2000) deliberately and illegally defied a court order to prevent voters from voting...knowing that the voters were largely democratic. We also know that she ordered different counties to certify results that were illegal because they used a standard other than whether or not the "intent of the voter" was clear. These two illegal actions by Bush's campaign manager clearly resulted in a swing of votes much larger than Bush's official margin of victory.

 

We know that because the Florida Supreme Court (8 out of 9 of which were appointed by Republicans) noted her illegal actions and ordered a recount under the legal standard clearly spelled out via statute that had been ignored.

 

So we know that Bush is currently in office because of sweeping illegal conduct in Florida by his own State Campaign Head.

 

But enough about lying about mushroom clouds, preventing voters from voting & ordering illegal certification of results. I mean, after all, we only know about that stuff because it's

 

uncontested public record.

 

What's really got me worked up is the unsubstantiated speculation about whether the pen was in Kerry's pocket or whether the debate staff left it on the podium for him. If we find out that he brought it in his pocket, and he wins the precedency based on this legal-but-clearly-against-the-negotiated-rules PEN,

 

well, if that's comes to pass, we should definitely impeach the man. I mean what kind of character can a man have when he breaks the rules to bring in a pen???

 

Assuming, of course, that this wasn't the standard pen & paper that both candidates were left as agreed to in the rules. I mean, if we read the rules, it does say that they'll get that stuff to make notes for their own use during the debates...

 

but clearly Kerry might just be unscrupulous enough to bring in his own pen.

 

And if that's the difference in the election, I say again - we should impeach.

 

Democrats. They have such questionable character.

[pae]

but it does show some character of the man when he can't even follow the simplest of rules.

I didn't see this line earlier.

 

Cadaver, you owe me a new irony meter. This line completely destroyed the one I had.

[marmar63]

Yep. Any evidence that staff DIDN'T leave a pen for Kerry?

 

Cuz I'd love to nail that Kerry.

While I'm most certainly NOT pro Kerry, I must admit that I love your rebuttal. :)

[Star Drifter]

I think there are enough threads for attacking Bush. If not, it seems a few people would always appreciate more.

 

Kerry had enough problems with the format of the debate to let an ink pen bother me. Seeing the way he answered questions by going off topic - such as criticising Bush's ideas about security instead of offering his own plans, or talking about Iran when asked about other countries. From what I saw, that ink pen was one of the few things he may have had a solid grasp on all night.

[Smokin']

CD, there was a rumour going around that American's had no sense of irony.

 

Thank you for destroying it so beautifully.

[Darkstar]

I think there are enough threads for attacking Bush. If not, it seems a few people would always appreciate more.

 

Kerry had enough problems with the format of the debate to let an ink pen bother me. Seeing the way he answered questions by going off topic - such as criticising Bush's ideas about security instead of offering his own plans, or talking about Iran when asked about other countries. From what I saw, that ink pen was one of the few things he may have had a solid grasp on all night.

Did you watch the same debate that I did? The one where Bush was pretty close to drooling on himself right? Kerry did nothing but offer his own plans...like, in every response, that's almost all he talked about. Everything Bush said was buzzword rhetoric, where Kerry actually offered solutions, plans and forethought. He actually took time to state that the difference between himself and Bush was that he in fact had a plan where Bush did not. In fact, this is what struck MOST people in their reviews of the debate. I'm no pundit, but i do know what took place.

[Cadaver]

I'm saying I think it is a pen, there are others who think it may have been a coaching sheet, cheat sheet if you will.

As for solid plans the thing I heard about Iraq was we need more troops, yet we need to get our troops out of there, seems kinda opposite to me.

As to the character of the man, I've already heard from numerous sources that Kerry is one of those "Do you know who I am" kinda people, and that irritates the crap out of me from someone who's supposed to be for the common man.

[Darkrelease]

I believe what he said was that he wanted to create a global coalition of forces (that includes more than three countries) that would see a net result of more troops in Iraq but less American troops and less cost to the States.

[vejlin]

BEGIN DISCLAIMER

 

The following is NOT meant as a critique of the US, but rather my observations on the sad state of politics in a country that I have grown to love.

 

Not being from the US, my observations are from a period of my life where I lived in the US, and from the news papers (lived on and off in Memphis TN, first as an exchange student and later visiting my host family. Total of approx. 2 years). So forgive me any inaccuracies.

 

END DSCLAIMER

 

It seems to me that the US is currently at a political and democratic lowpoint in history. The political debate is dominated by mudslinging and populism. Instead of debating the actual issues, the majority of the time is spent going after the man and not his views. The elections themselves have degenarated into a contest about who can afford the most bikini girls and coloured balloons.

 

Ideally the politicians explain what their standpoints are and what they find most important to prioritize, and then let the voters choose whoever they agree with (or disagree the least with).

In the real world it seems the politician tries to guess what the public would like hear ("I like babies" or something equally pointless like "I'm for good stuff and I don't like bad stuff").

 

I would so love to see an American politician who has the balls to step forward and say "Hey I know some of you will disagree with me, but I'd like to raise the taxes, so we can spend more money on X" or maybe even "I'd like to lower the taxes, and to finance that I'll cut down our spendings on Y"

Sadly it's more likely to hear "I'd like to lower the taxes, and spend more funds on X, Y and Z ..... And by the way that other guy is a meanie who will raise the taxes and spend less funds on X, Y and Z"

 

Just my observations

 

Kim

 

:: RUNS AWAY ::

[marmar63]

Just my observations

 

Kim

 

:: RUNS AWAY ::

Don't run away. I think you've just stated what most Americans would like to see. Personally, however, I'm of the point of view that with the current dual-party system we have, America simply isn't going to get any better. Also, with so many people identifying with one party or the other, to the exclusion of all good sense, there's not enough of a constituency to make the radical change needed to get us back on the right track.

 

It's not the government of the people, by the people anymore. it's of the politicians, by the politicians, for the politicians.

[madrogran]

All I know is that I disagree with Kerry on 75% of his domestic and foreign policies, so there is no way in hell I would vote for him. His vision of our future will tie us too tightly to the UN, will take away my right bear arms and will spend money on domestic issues I don't want to spend money on.

 

I also know that I do not like or trust Bush. He is too religiously right wing for me.

 

I'm voting Libertarian. I realize that some of you will call that a "wasted vote", but I can see no other way of letting the Big Two Lying Political Parties that I'm not up for dealing with their BS anymore. I hope those of you who are voting for Kerry only because he isn't GW take that approach as well.

[Lars Porsenna]

I'm voting Libertarian. I realize that some of you will call that a "wasted vote", but I can see no other way of letting the Big Two Lying Political Parties that I'm not up for dealing with their BS anymore. I hope those of you who are voting for Kerry only because he isn't GW take that approach as well.

The problem, though, is that if you want to protest with your vote AGAINST Bush by voting, say, Libertarian, it will be ineffectual because there are not enough people that will go this route, and if enough people are swayed to this POV, may actually hurt chances of getting Bush OUT of office.

 

Personally, I don't think the Libertarians are a viable alternate political party for the US. Some of their stuff sounds interesting...but then they just go too far, and the solution is utterly unrealistic. Maybe if the Libertarians moderated their conservatism they might get more votes...

 

Besides, I remember reading a Lo-ong article a while ago about how the Libertarian candidate is a nut-job. Don't know how true it is...

 

Damon.