Debate Feed
By: Lisa On: Sep/29/04 -
We put the Debate Feed on our site before the debate begins, and be sure to encourage other bloggers to do also. Each time John Kerry says something false or inaccurate during the debates, the live feed will be updated instantly with the facts. The Bush campaign has clearly recognized the power of blogs and has made this available to add to our websites.
Here it is - - I’ll also be putting it at the top of the right column in anticipation of the debates tomorrow night!
Big thanks to Matt for sending this along via email.
You know at least 20 ways to open a beer bottle. Its joke 
September 29, 2004 - 08:30 PM on September 29th, 2004
I like this very much!
September 29, 2004 - 08:53 PM on September 29th, 2004
Just out of curiosity…. what’s it gonna do when Bush says something that is inaccurate or false?
September 29, 2004 - 08:56 PM on September 29th, 2004
that wouldn’t happen, stageleft!!! hey all, bush is on dr. phil right now…while i don’t like dr. phil, i do like watching an hour of the bush family!!!
September 29, 2004 - 09:11 PM on September 29th, 2004
Bush? Say something false? lol
Anyways - - this feed is watching over Kerry’s statements, of course. Perhaps Kerry’s people have their own feed? Not sure.
September 29, 2004 - 09:28 PM on September 29th, 2004
What will they think of next?
I checked my RRS feeds from blogs I follow this evening and noted an article titled Debate Feed on Right Voices. Thinking they had scored a
September 29, 2004 - 09:33 PM on September 29th, 2004
Would it matter Lisa? Both are gonna lie, toss spin, and try and lead people into thinking “X” instead of “X&Y because of Z” - do you doubt it?
September 29, 2004 - 09:38 PM on September 29th, 2004
I have no doubt of the spin, SL - - none whatsoever - from both sides. That’s what political debates always are. It’s left up to the Amercian public to decifer shit from shinola.
September 29, 2004 - 09:39 PM on September 29th, 2004
The NEW debate forum… factchecking your ass as soon as the words are out of your mouth… Wonder if Bush can sneak in a wire and refute him right away??
September 30, 2004 - 10:50 AM on September 30th, 2004
Awesome, I got a callout on Stageleft’s site…apparantly, he didn’t catch my sarcasm in Post 3. Sheesh, dem libs have no sense of humor.
September 30, 2004 - 11:01 AM on September 30th, 2004
Hey K, I’m relatively new here so you’ll have to forgive me for missing your sarcasm…. for all I know you might actually be a fanatical Republican:wink:
September 30, 2004 - 11:04 AM on September 30th, 2004
K - i went to the site you mentioned and saw the ‘callout’ (whatever that is.)the site seemed so confusing compared to this one.
September 30, 2004 - 12:39 PM on September 30th, 2004
let’s hope they keep vietnam OUT of the debate.
September 30, 2004 - 12:46 PM on September 30th, 2004
Stage - no prob, I am a good repub, but a smartass too.
Shiloh - the confusion is that Stageleft seems to be an open-minded, nice leftie.
September 30, 2004 - 02:56 PM on September 30th, 2004
Can someone tell me, succinctly, how this feed stuff works from an enduser perspective? I have not looked into it at all. Like - if I have the browser open, does the feed autoscroll or autoupdate or what? I think that can only occur in a java applet though.
September 30, 2004 - 07:07 PM on September 30th, 2004
Bush? Say something false? lol
“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”
George W. Bush, President
Speech to UN General Assembly
9/12/2002
“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”
George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002
“The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.”
George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
September 30, 2004 - 07:10 PM on September 30th, 2004
LOL…love the bit showing up about Kerry on that thing!
Too funny! 
September 30, 2004 - 07:56 PM on September 30th, 2004
Get the Popcorn and Cocktails
Aaaahhh the debates! Well I have got a few things for you to keep in mind for this 3 ring circus…. You have got to play the debates drinking game Spoons is going to do live blogging during Vox and…
September 30, 2004 - 08:53 PM on September 30th, 2004
BTW, DG, thanks for the spam. Might have to report my suspicions thereof to the administration if it persists…
September 30, 2004 - 10:12 PM on September 30th, 2004
What spam?
September 30, 2004 - 10:26 PM on September 30th, 2004
see there is a huge difference in KNOWING your saying something false and not knowing, it’s all “bush lied, bush lied, bush lied!” when the truth is we had bad intel, bush didn’t know any of it was false.
while kerry loves to throw away lies all day knowingly.
October 1, 2004 - 08:01 AM on October 1st, 2004
Just about any incessant linking, as you have been doing as of late, with little if any relevence to the topic at hand with the sole purpose of influence.
But that’s really not up for me to decide. That’s why I would mention it to the administration should it come up again, so they can determine for themselves whether or not it is spam.
October 1, 2004 - 08:11 PM on October 1st, 2004
The saying gose you can tell a man by the company he keeps and kerrys company are a rather shady bunch like chapaquedic ted(kennedy)diane(not so)feinstein charles(chucky)shuimer and you cant get more shad:eek:eir then these bunch i mean their more scary then al capone, pretty boy floyd and bonny and clyde
October 1, 2004 - 08:19 PM on October 1st, 2004
Snowy Egret
Your embarrassment of Bush’s performance last night shows.
He did look pretty bad…
October 1, 2004 - 08:31 PM on October 1st, 2004
AG —
You’re going to have to be more specific. First you complain that I tell you to look it up. Now you moan about the links.
Which ones are spam? The ones with the facts you don’t like? Like Bush’s quotes? Or James A Banker III helping the Saudi’s fight off families of 9/11 victims? Which ones?
If you doubt any of them, do your own search.
SPAM — that’s a good one.
It’s like instead of Republicans saying “Bush looked a crosseyed, mongoloid monkey” during the debates, they simply say “Kerry did better than expected”. Only to follow that up with “Kerry is an expert debater”.
Now that’s spam!
October 1, 2004 - 08:52 PM on October 1st, 2004
Just about any form of deliberate distraction you’ve been known to post with impunity, mostly decidedly off-topic. And you don’t have to play dumb with me — not if you want me to believe you’re the smart one here. You know very well which ones I consider spam.
In this case, at least to me, #14 is a classic case of spam. The topic was on the debates, yet once again you’re going back to that tired WMD-bit incessantly.
There was another thread where you made a point of making a link that was completely OT, yet you managed to name the link something that was mildly topical…nice little manner of trickery.
Seeing as it’s been a long day at the office, however, you are more than welcome to look it up for yourself — I have neither the energy nor the interest.
Anyway, I’m not saying it’s spam per se — it just seems like spam to me. All I’m saying is that, if another post using such tactics is posted (seeing as you give no sign of changing your ever-ignored tune any time soon), I’ll be sure to bounce it off of the administration to see if they think it’s spam. Now if you don’t think they would think that, you shouldn’t have anything to worry about, now, should you?
If you want to once again change the subject through your decidedly narrow view and declare it’s simply a matter of “my objecting to the posts I don’t like,” well, where does that put me? What should I do when I see a blatant change of subject/distraction that indicates that you don’t like any of the topics posted here, and instead must change every single thread to your personal platform?
October 1, 2004 - 10:23 PM on October 1st, 2004
AG, you don’t belong to Da union Goon’s union. Therefore he thinks you have no rights.
October 1, 2004 - 11:47 PM on October 1st, 2004
Tell me something I don’t know, PCD.
But I figure reasoning is worth a shot.
Probably as effective as reasoning with the UN, but still worth a shot…
October 2, 2004 - 07:26 AM on October 2nd, 2004
#14 is in response to #4. So, tell the administration. Big Deal!
PCD
You know, not one of your posts ever contained anything of substance. Just a bunch of anger spewing onto your posts.
My guess is, with no understanding of history, no comprehension of the facts and with no meaningful way to respond, you just type words into sentences about people that make points you can’t comprehend.
Why don’t you try to give us some intellingent posts on why you think Bush did such a great job on the debate.
October 2, 2004 - 12:03 PM on October 2nd, 2004
Am I to understand, then, that you are the only person on this site with any type of comprehension of history whatsoever? Am I to understand that you have completely verified your sources, without grabbing on to the first thing that sounds good to you, like something you personally would relate to, and by that qualification alone, in your own eyes, you’re better than the rest of us?
I’m getting the very distinct impression, DG, that you’re beginning to think you’re almost superior to the administration that runs this site. Which is all well and good, except for one small fact: you do not run this site. If you did, you could pretty much do whatever the heck you wanted, but this is not the case.
And for the record, it’s not my site either. And I do try to acknowledge that as much as possible and make it clear that my POV is my POV alone, rather than lording it over everyone here the way you do. That’s the difference between you and me — I have a better understanding of the authority here than you do.
Because, like a lot of us, Bush is not necessarily terribly gifted at thinking on his feet. I can relate only too well to that. He speaks well, but usually with a well-written speech — nothing wrong with that. I’m very much the same way myself when it comes to public performances and speaking, believe it or not…
He also has a tendancy of losing his temper and, when he does so, naturally he looks like an idiot, because he’s too angry to think straight. Again, like a great many of us, the one difference being that every camera in the world is on him in such situations. Heck, even I have been known to do that from time to time on this site!
ops:
It doesn’t make him an idiot to me. It makes him a human being, and not nearly as pious and over-confident as Kerry.
Of course, it doesn’t help that goofballs like Jim Lehrer were put in charge of the debate, but that’s an entirely different matter altogether.
October 2, 2004 - 12:59 PM on October 2nd, 2004
Da union Goon, Maybe I am tired of your repeating of crap from Michael Moore and from the union hall.
Socialism NEVER works. It is a parasitic economic theory. It creates nothing, yet consumes everything.
Da Goon, you never came back with a company still in business that is run by a union and run profitably.
First of all, Bush isn’t a phoney like Secret Agent Orange Kerry and his botox shots and spray on fake tan. Bush speaks from the heart, not from memorized talking points.
Contrary to Kerry, Bush can think and react in an emergency, not sit like stone staring at Nanci Pelosi and Tom Daschle until the Pentagon got bombed to think of something. Oh that something was saving his own skin, not of saving the country.
October 4, 2004 - 07:10 PM on October 4th, 2004
AG,
I am not superior to anyone here — or anywherelse, for that matter — and I apologize if I have somehow given you that impression.
Having said that, let me add that when someone posts a statement that I know to be inaccurate, half the story, or somehow flawed (in my opinion), I point it out in a most concise way.
The responses I get usually do not dispell any of the facts that I have posted as much as they just lambast me or others who point out similar facts.
The willingness of anyone to completely disregard facts (like when Dick Cheney spews the known inaccuracy about Saddam’s nuclear program) is frightening to me living in a so-called democratic-republic like ours.
It is hard for Americans to consider that our government would lie to us in order to wage war –even though most Americans agree that the government lies to us about everything else.
This is the frightening part about history — all nations that have reached a pinnacle of power over the world, have acted on arrogance and with “invincibility” only to end with colossal miscalculations.
World War I is a perfect example of arrogant nations reacting to the others’ imperialism. 3 million French, German and British soldiers were killed in the first 18 months of that war.
Wars like that have never been waged within this country. Adding all American wars from the Revolution to Iraq would never equal the casualties lost by France alone in 1914-1915. Maybe that is why they are a little more reluctant to wage a reckless war without merit.
There has never in history been a war waged that has not begun with a lie. Truth is the first casualty of war.
Just consider it…
October 4, 2004 - 07:29 PM on October 4th, 2004
Apology accepted, though I continue to use my freedom of choice not to read your incessant opinions and supposed facts most likely based on record-published revisionist history courtesy of the liberal media.
Which brings me to a remark you made some time ago regarding the Michael Moore film. You made a point of saying that you did not see the film because you either “didn’t need to” or “didn’t have to.”
What does this implicate to the rest of us?
Simple — that we “have” to see this film, that we have absolutely no choice as Americans where our choices are concerned. Never mind the fact that it is a direct contradiction of the liberal insistence to “question everything” — we’re not supposed to question the “wise words” of Moore, but see it no matter what.
I guess I just haven’t read the new law liberals have written that insist that watching the film Fahrenheit 9-11 is imperative to becoming an official American citizen.
DG, you have offered many ignorably negative so-called “facts” about Bush. You have failed to offer any optimistic promise of the alternative of Bush, ie what we could stand to gain if we do not get Bush. I’ve seen the alternative, and find it to be far more phony, unsettling and, in light of the times we live in, downright frightening. What about those 45 minutes that Kerry “just sat there”? We only have his empty words on “what he would have done,” but his own actions betray him.
The next time you post numerous facts, you should ask yourself whether or not America can seriously afford the alternative. You should also ask yourself whether or not you are respecting the rights of free-thinking Americans, and just how free-thinking you’d like Americans to be. Personally, I think one of the many reasons you post all of this stuff that you post on a regular basis is because you can’t stand the idea of free-thinkers. I think they scare you to death, hence the reason you see the need to “spread conformity” with your numerous messages.
But hey, what do I know? I’m just thinking freely here, outside of your influence.
October 4, 2004 - 08:10 PM on October 4th, 2004
AG
I plan on buying the movie tomorrow. It has 80 minutes of additional footage and I can’t wait.
But the reason that I do not have to see (and could give a shit less rather you see it) is because the parts of Moores movie that rub you repubs the wrong way, like Bush’s association with the Saudi’s and a secret flight on Sept. 13 full of Bin Ladens to leave the country while American citizens had to sit in the Airports, is a fact. I did not need Michael Moore to point it out to me. Although, I’m glad he IS pointing it out, and a lot of people are watching.
Are you not at all alarmed that the law firm of long-time Bush friend and confidant, James A Baker III is representing members of the Saudi Royal family who are being sued by victims families of 9/11? Doesn’t that concern you at all? Does it not tread close to a conflict of interest? And what about patriotism? These Saudi’s contributed heavily to organizations known to assist terrorists. That’s why they are being sued ny the families.
But, your open mind is ignoring these “so-called” facts.
October 4, 2004 - 08:30 PM on October 4th, 2004
That is your right, and I respect that.
In so doing, I fully expect you to respect my right not to, and to respect my right to choose my own sources. For starters, I’m thrilled to report that I only have three chapters of Ann Coulter’s Treason to go!
October 5, 2004 - 08:26 AM on October 5th, 2004
As usual, Da union Goon has his facts wrong again. The flight taking the Bin Ladens out of the country was authorized by RICHARD CLARKE! Richard Clarke said he did it to the 9/11 commission on his own authority. It was not secret, it just wasn’t preceeded with a press conference. It wasn’t during the no fly period that Norm Mineta decreed.
Da union Goon is wrong again.