I almost feel like shutting this off and finding some game to play. Nothing new here, and I only feel more confused by both of them.
Stupid debates without debating. This is just glorified Q and A.
The Great Debate
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
Vindicator
- DBB Benefactor
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 3:01 am
- Location: southern IL, USA
- Contact:
Lets see...Dan Rather runs a scare report on how the draft is ready to spring on all the mothers sons. Two democrats enter a bill to re-institute the draft. Now Kerry wants 2 new divisions?Vindicator wrote:Kerry wants to add two more divisions to the military for 'global needs'? o_O
Curious how the dems want to scare the electorate into thinking the repubs are going to re-start the draft
Kerry is an @$$hole for insulting Poland the way he did by saying that Poland does'nt count.
I tell you what, all of the Polish, mayby some Europeans who are citizens in this country will now change their mind about Kerry if they ever considered voting for him. Kerry just shot himself in the foot and lost a small group of voters. Way to persuade people to vote for you.
The victor of this debate has been decided before it has ended, and Kerry has fsked himself up like he did all throught his campaign.
I tell you what, all of the Polish, mayby some Europeans who are citizens in this country will now change their mind about Kerry if they ever considered voting for him. Kerry just shot himself in the foot and lost a small group of voters. Way to persuade people to vote for you.
The victor of this debate has been decided before it has ended, and Kerry has fsked himself up like he did all throught his campaign.
Ha ha ha, he does. IMO, if this debate HAS to have a winner, its kerry by the smallest hair, and thats only by virtue of the fact that he doesnt stutter or pause like Bush does.Pebkac wrote:It's lucky for Bush that much of what Kerry has said contradicts things he has said in the past. Bush debates like old people ****.
Neither one of them said anything new, none of them really furthered their positions, and I still cant think of a better reason to vote for kerry other than hes not bush. Before the debate on CNN they had Nader on and he made the best points of the evening. Anyone see that?
Ended JUST now.
And I tell you what, this was more of a mature debate than 2000 against Al Gore. He made himself out to be an idiot with his style and interuptions. An example for speech classes everywhere on how NOT to debate.
At face value, the debate was good. however when you look behind Kerry's senate career and his one contradiction after another in just the past few years, Bush has won that department. However Bush had to many hesitations and vocal fillers, however that does not determine how I will vote. Kerry so far has not convinced me, its just more of the same you-know-what.
One more thing. Did anyone catch Kerry saying that Saddam WAS a threat towards the end? Thats the kind of thing im talking about.
And I tell you what, this was more of a mature debate than 2000 against Al Gore. He made himself out to be an idiot with his style and interuptions. An example for speech classes everywhere on how NOT to debate.
At face value, the debate was good. however when you look behind Kerry's senate career and his one contradiction after another in just the past few years, Bush has won that department. However Bush had to many hesitations and vocal fillers, however that does not determine how I will vote. Kerry so far has not convinced me, its just more of the same you-know-what.
One more thing. Did anyone catch Kerry saying that Saddam WAS a threat towards the end? Thats the kind of thing im talking about.
-
Vertigo 99
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2684
- Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 2:01 am
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
Well, I came in with low expectations for the debate, and was quite surprised. It turned out to be better than I expected. I still disagree with Bush about starting the war, and Kerry is still flip-flopping (saying we should pursue multilateral negotiations with regards to Iraq, but abandon them with North Korea and switch to bilateral diplomacy for example) but it was more interesting to watch than I thought it would be.
Well, I'm sure all the SCOM professors across this nation will declare this a win for Kerry based solely on delivery. However, from a substance standpoint, Kerry's remarks throughout the campaign really put him in a corner. He made several statements that were direct contradictions to previous statements.
He mentioned a lack of proper armor in Iraq, yet he voted against the $87 billion. Bush flubbed by not putting that out there at the right time. He swung late on that one.
He mentioned our turning away from the "global warming treaty" which I have to assume is Kyoto. Kyoto was voted down 95-0 in the SENATE so whether he voted no or abstained, either one shows that Kerry didn't exactly support it either.
He mentioned Bush's rejection of the International Criminal Court even though Kerry voted for the Helms Ammendment in 1998, barring US cooperation with the ICC except in matters of assisting US or allied citizens.
He continues to mention his Vietnam service. He still doesn't seem to realize that the SBVets aren't just a small collection of nuts. A significant portion of the population remembers his post-Vietnam activities when he mentions his service.
He accuses Bush of implementing a "back-door draft" yet says he wants to increase troop levels and special force levels (in direct contradiction of previous statements). Where does he intend to get these people if not through compulsory service?
He wants no other nations involved in talks with North Korea but he won't accept Iraq without Frech and German support.
He wants to convince North Korea to shut down there nuclear programs, even though they promised to do it during Clinton's tenure and promptly went about breaking those promises.
He mentioned Halliburton and alluded to the War for Oil argument, which usually trips the "nutjob" alarm in most people. Right or wrong, him even mentioning those words will cause your average Joe and JoAnn to think about those conspiracy theories.
There are more, so it'll be fun going over the transcripts. Kerry didn't help himself too much tonight. All Bush had to do was avoid being caught on camera picking his nose to win. He said "hard work" too much for my taste, and there were several puzzling pauses. I also think he invented a new word tonight, "trans-shipments."
Anyway, there's plenty of spin material once the political muckity mucks get on it.
He mentioned a lack of proper armor in Iraq, yet he voted against the $87 billion. Bush flubbed by not putting that out there at the right time. He swung late on that one.
He mentioned our turning away from the "global warming treaty" which I have to assume is Kyoto. Kyoto was voted down 95-0 in the SENATE so whether he voted no or abstained, either one shows that Kerry didn't exactly support it either.
He mentioned Bush's rejection of the International Criminal Court even though Kerry voted for the Helms Ammendment in 1998, barring US cooperation with the ICC except in matters of assisting US or allied citizens.
He continues to mention his Vietnam service. He still doesn't seem to realize that the SBVets aren't just a small collection of nuts. A significant portion of the population remembers his post-Vietnam activities when he mentions his service.
He accuses Bush of implementing a "back-door draft" yet says he wants to increase troop levels and special force levels (in direct contradiction of previous statements). Where does he intend to get these people if not through compulsory service?
He wants no other nations involved in talks with North Korea but he won't accept Iraq without Frech and German support.
He wants to convince North Korea to shut down there nuclear programs, even though they promised to do it during Clinton's tenure and promptly went about breaking those promises.
He mentioned Halliburton and alluded to the War for Oil argument, which usually trips the "nutjob" alarm in most people. Right or wrong, him even mentioning those words will cause your average Joe and JoAnn to think about those conspiracy theories.
There are more, so it'll be fun going over the transcripts. Kerry didn't help himself too much tonight. All Bush had to do was avoid being caught on camera picking his nose to win. He said "hard work" too much for my taste, and there were several puzzling pauses. I also think he invented a new word tonight, "trans-shipments."
Anyway, there's plenty of spin material once the political muckity mucks get on it.
Apparently Kerry also stated that the $200 billion in Iraq is the reason why Bush couldn't afford the firefighters and police officers to keep the subway open or the people safe.
The subway was completely open. I rode it that day. And I'd love to know just how that $200 billion in federal money would somehow have made it into the NYC budget from a year ago?!
The subway was completely open. I rode it that day. And I'd love to know just how that $200 billion in federal money would somehow have made it into the NYC budget from a year ago?!
Gawd, this thread is like reading the RNC's cheerleeding squad.
Bush sucked. He was a broken record. But I will give him and his handlers points for staying on message, and did all you RNC pom-pom pushers see that bush kept wanting to add onto the rebuttal without saying anything about the topic at hand?
"...umm, well my opponenet is wishy-washy, it's a lot of hard work, and a free Iraq will be a good thing for the people of the US" ... regardless of the topic.
oh, and the gaffe when Bush said Iraq was the center of terrorism and said that Iraq attacked the US!!!
Kerry's problem is that he goes through so much stuff, no one will be able to remember anything he said in 2 days.
Bush sucked. He was a broken record. But I will give him and his handlers points for staying on message, and did all you RNC pom-pom pushers see that bush kept wanting to add onto the rebuttal without saying anything about the topic at hand?
"...umm, well my opponenet is wishy-washy, it's a lot of hard work, and a free Iraq will be a good thing for the people of the US" ... regardless of the topic.
oh, and the gaffe when Bush said Iraq was the center of terrorism and said that Iraq attacked the US!!!
Kerry's problem is that he goes through so much stuff, no one will be able to remember anything he said in 2 days.
-
index_html
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 2:01 am
My favorite part:
--------------------
KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?
(snip)
LEHRER: Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
KERRY: No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering.
I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence.
--------------------
Glad he cleared that up.
--------------------
KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?
(snip)
LEHRER: Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
KERRY: No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering.
I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence.
--------------------
Glad he cleared that up.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/ ... nscript.1/Skyalmian wrote:Everyone missed the part about Kerry saying that he would provide nuclear fuel for Iran?
here is a transcript of last nights debate, can you show me where he said that?
if only the transcript could include the 20 second pauses while Bush tried to remember what Chaney told him to say. Bush only had one line and he couldnt even deliver that smoothly.
go yanks!"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes." -- John KerryPugwash wrote:here is a transcript of last nights debate, can you show me where he said that?
if you read the whole thing he is suggesting keeping them under control rather that letting them go ahead unchecked. not such a bad idea after all. they will get nuclear material anyways if they dont already have it.I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.