Tonight's presidential debate...

panzershreck · Sep 30, 2004

well just spent 2+ hours paying extremely close attention to every word either of them said... and mind you i've never liked either candidate... but in all seriousness...

Bush did terrible, he conveyed inexperience and his debate tactics were of classic boring beaten & used (not to mention i heard the same thing over and over and over again), he never conveyed confidence (other than blind confidence) and seemed to stumble... Kerry did well, he answered every question and replied each time with confidence, and if you paid enough attention he never once "flip-flopped" on any issue (reality is grey people! grey!)... however, Bush did raise one or two points against Kerry during the sub-topics of the sub-topics... but killed himself on everything else...

so... i've hated both of these guys for over a year(s) now... and who do I swing toward now? Kerry, he conveyed confidence, he conveyed knowledge and the qualities that somebody leading a nuclear superpower pushing itself as center of the known economic and political universe should do... I just wish more people like Colin Powell, like all those advisors, were in leading positions... Bush felt weak...

....

oh and something of extreme importance that is of issue with campaign dogma recently...

Kerry never once used the Vietnam War as a way of advertising himself... he used it as a learning experience, as all people should, whether running for president, president, advisor, whatever... (and even then on a limited basis)

Big Daddy · Sep 30, 2004

I disagree, I do not think either one of them did better than the other. President Bush pointed out several of Kerry's lies and called him on them. I will admit that neither of them "impressed" me with their responses tonight. I don't think we will see much change in the polls as a result of tonight.

Kirby · Sep 30, 2004

I was impressed by the mediocrity of both candidates. I also got a kick out of the lip service compliments they gave to each other and their families.

jrt67ss350 · Sep 30, 2004

Kirby said:

LOL. That's what I figured it would be like. I recorded it with my new DVD recorder (birthday gift from the parents [:)]

) tonight, so I'll make myself a bowl of popcorn and watch the mediocrity tomorrow night!

xLibelle · Sep 30, 2004

i agree with panzer, bush is a poor speaker and fell short in debating. He just doesnt have the intelligence and speaking ability to compete in such with kerry. nor do i believe that bush has teh ability to run the country "better" than kerry would, in respect to intellegence.

though kerry was shot down a couple times by bush (yes, kerry did "flip flop" once but caught himself and did say he fought for our country in viet. and he will as president)... god this debate was boring... bush was not able compete with the senator.

one thing that has always gotten me, ever since the last elections, is how bush talks hot air. he uses religious gestures and talk of love and family in combination with descriptions of how strong the usa is and how we need to "fight terrorism with patriotism" and he makes huge blind promises that are in NO WAY backed up with facts or proof or future evidence that when he talks, it means something. he does it to the point where when he says something, it actually means nothing. he shoots around in the air aimlessly and never hits the points he needs to make his words mean something. (ok, i just realized i repeated myself a couple times... but im trying to explain my argument) And this is what bewilders me is how so many "educated" americans can give faith to such a leader that doesnt know what he is saying. (in contrast, tonight, kerry stated goals and objectives with backup facts)
i REALLY wish i could reiderate this point more than i can by having said what i have, but, unfortunately, i cant come up with all the examples where i listened to bush's hot air to use in such a way to better describe this.

granted, there is NOT much choice one leader can give in need of action, other than to jsut claim war, but i agree with kerry, that the us did not go into war as a last resort AND(!) we were fighting the wrong way (called making bad decisions on the presidents behalf) and we ended up with the wrong outcome (iraq was less a threat than what is still out there).

I do believe that kerry could have handled that whole situation better because of his intelligence and experience from having been at war before, nevermind any "flip-flopping" bullsh*t you hear, it means nothing because the outcome did not reflect his choices.
I do think kerry has better ideas on how to handle the nearing future negotiations needed with other countries at large. Are YOU willing to let Bush screw those up too, by not allowing the bi-lateral talks and ending up in more middle-east war-like situations?!?

overall, there is only so much that the president ultimately does because he is so heavily advised by his departments so i'm not concerned entirely about this because i know both candidates loves our country and will do what they can to protect us.

So my sway is still for kerry, but what pushes me further are the topics that werent covered in tonights debates like abortion, taxes (what idiot cuts taxes to teh rich?), and stem cell research.

Gibby · Oct 1, 2004

Bush has more substance - Kerry has more showmanship. Bush was worn down from doing the job of President, visiting with storm victims all day. Kerry probably spent the day relaxing and getting his hair done, while having his fake tan removed. Bush needs to explain the ties between Saddam and terrorism, not Saddam and 9/11. Hell, the guy that made the bomb for the 1st WTC attack was on the freekn Iraqi Govt. payroll, living in Baghdad!!!

mjbst111 · Oct 1, 2004

I don't usually say anything in these threads but i have something to add.

I saw a big difference in how the candidate were responding to the questions asked. I think Kerry apeared more confident because he didn't always answer the questions asked. Kerry would often go off on to a tangent almost like an advertisement for each topic. He even went as far as advertising his website. While advertising his website he certainly did not answer the question. Bush seemed to actually put thought into each question and answered each question. He didn't just speak (what sounded to me) earcandy from a script to impress the people listening. Although I do agree that it was beat to hear Bush drive the same point multiple times.

panzershreck · Oct 1, 2004

Gibby said:

neither candidate opposed going to war with Iraq, it was the way in which it was done that was up for debate... ie: the screwed up justifications, screwed up forceful diplomacy (no real diplomatic goals, just goals for what they wanted in the end that had nothing to do with diplomacy), and war first mentality (and the priority of Iraq over Al Queda and other)

mjbst111 said:

now... dont get me wrong... im a huge debator... its pretty much all i do on the internet... so if i go too far by arguing with every single thing...

but i noticed the complete opposite, Kerry did what a good debator should do and thats that you reply to every thing the opponent talks about in reference to something you had already said, which he did for every single time Bush replied so... that is why you'd have a question for Kerry and he'd go off on something else for a minute, talking about the previous statement about Bush, before going on about the question at hand... its a completely normal tactic, and good for making sure your own case doesn't get mis-interpreted... the points such as the website and book (which i thought was rather funny) had somewhat to do with the current discussion about Kerry's policies, thus their interjection(sp?) into the debate just as one might include anything other than his own words, ie: a reference or a backup (or in this case, a way of backing up one's own statements with additional text to help make the original arguement or statement more clear)...

On Bush, i noticed alot of appeal to emotion, alot of vague notions and examples and not much really concrete or backed up by facts... i also noticed alot of the same "common man" techniques of purposeful generalized statements about Kerry's inability to be a president, and a "no-strong leadership" in what Kerry said continual statement in reference to overall foreign policy and the way other nations might perceive us (something Bush has failed at, and no matter who's next president, needs to be able to communicate with these people and not just for whenever we need extra military support or logistical support or cases for the UN)... to me Bush felt weak on foreign policy in the debate, and for how much we have fought smart in the last 3 years vs. overt destructionism is anybody's opinion and guess...

but thats just how i saw it... and everybody sees everything differently...

Gibby · Oct 1, 2004

Diplomacy does not work with countries like France and Russia, when they are receiving billions$ from Saddam thru the UN joke called "oil for food". France needs to take a look at the headstones of US soldiers in their cemeteries!!!

panzershreck · Oct 1, 2004

Gibby said:

so you're equating our casaulties to France and Russia? are they not our responsibility? think pre-Iraq war here, no casaulties from anybody, no 1000+ american deaths and 15-20,000 iraqi deaths, they didnt see Iraq as a threat just as the majority of the world didn't see iraq as a threat (and mind you, alot of our allies in the war were only there for slice of the economic pie, this has been public statement for some time, realistically the war itself was fought by 3 nations: US, UK, Australia... you now have troops from other countries in there as we speak, few of which are not in any way supporting of staying there, like Poland, as they are not getting anything out of the war), and still dont see Iraq as a threat (other than the terrorists who poured in after the war)... we are the one's who pushed for this war, France and Russia had no obligation to help us, nobody did, and they still dont except on their own terms... we didn't really try at diplomacy, we wanted war, we finally decided out of political motive to go through the UN, the UN didn't buy our case for war (WMD, which was thrown out the window some time ago) but did enact UNMOVIC, UNMOVIC is in Iraq for a few months, we give up on Iraq and invade, and now we have all those headstones and graves

Gibby · Oct 1, 2004

I'm saying France needs to remember why they are not speaking German. The entire world thought Saddam had WMD, including Kerry and Clinton. Bottom line is there is a percentage of the Muslim world that thinks we should die, and they are busy spilling in to Iraq to fight our armed soldiers. While they're busy doing that, they can't spill across our borders to form sleeper cells, and kill thousands of unarmed US civilians!!! Impossible to be 2 places at the same time...

panzershreck · Oct 1, 2004

Gibby said:

i wouldn't be so quick as to say these people are the same people who would "spill" across our border... and trust me, they still remember WW2 and what we did for them...

not sure how sound a stragegy is though of throwing our soldiers and their civilians into the meat grinder so we can kill off as many old and infinitely new terrorists/rebels/insurgents... sounds too much like a full-blown war of attrition, which is the last thing we need...

Gibby · Oct 1, 2004

Alright Panzershreck Knowitall, you win - I'm voting for Kerry (not).
Maybe you know if I should worry about a very slow leak in my differential? The dealer called it a seep, instead of leak. No fluid on my garage, just some around the diff.

aNoodle · Oct 1, 2004

Big Daddy said:

LOL, BigD. I wouldn't expect a partisan republican to admit his leader looked weak and on the run. This is nothing new when Bush is stripped of his telepromter and aides.

As in independent, I keep going back and forth on who would be better to clean up this mess. Parts of me say the republicans made this bed, so they should sleep in it. But that's kinda Machiavellian and not fair to our troops. Maybe Kerry with a fresh start can patch up our alliances and avoid this nonsense in the future with North Korea and Iran. Who knows.

In any event, I've never understood why people think the wars and homeland security are Bush's strong points. Osma bested Bush and no flight suit or "Mission Accomplished" banner can make it any different. I'll wait for the domestic debate, where I expect Bush to lay out details on how I can put away my own social security and not have to pay for the cry-Baby Boomers. Now that's a deal that could sway me. I just hope he's not blowing smoke at me.

Big Daddy · Oct 1, 2004

Gibby said:

Don't let it bother you, you made good points and I agree with you. Kerry says anything to get elected, that is fact! You are right too that Clinton, Kerry, Gore and everyone else bashing Bush did indeed believe Iraq was a threat. Kerry had all the same breifing information Bush had, and was on the Intel Committee (though he rarely attended, in fact why did he not see the 911 attack coming, hmm?) Why did Kerry not attend one Intel Committee after 911? I could not vote for him simply because he is endorsed by the ACP (American Commie Party), that tells me something about him.

Polls show Kerry did better, but most feel Bush is still a better leader and Commander in Chief:

Gallup Poll

Big Daddy · Oct 1, 2004

ANoodle why in every thread regarding politics (go back and check them) do you attempt to bash me? you must be voting for Kerry simply because I support Bush! Maybe it is because I am a "cry-baby-boomer", regardless I am gald that I can help you in your decision making. [rofl]

selavia · Oct 1, 2004

aNoodle said:

What?!?

What writing of his are you referring to? Certainly not "The Prince;" maybe I am misinterpreting what your saying, but I don't see how that is N.M.'s point. Are you forgetting his opinion about Lorenzo Medici? His whole idea revolves around the fact that those cannot rule in a Machiavellian manner must be removed; I mean "The Prince" while directly address to 'his magnificence' is really a scheme for another up and coming prince to take over Medici's rule. Take a careful look at the Dedicatory Letter in the Prince. I bring the Prince up b/c that is the one that most closely deals with politics, and I'm assuming that's why you mentioned him.

I don't mean to start anything, but I'm confused as to what you are implying.

Sean

epj3 · Oct 1, 2004

Big Daddy said:

Why did Kerry not see the 911 attacks coming? Because it was not his job!!!! You're older than me. No offense, but you should know that! I think the question should be why didn't the PRESIDENT AT THE TIME see the attacking coming?

What do you mean "Kerry says anything to get elected"? I'm quite confused at this, because it's not a matter of saying "anything". He is announcing his plans to the public because that is the only way he will be able to get votes - If he lets people hear what they want to hear. Guess who did the exact same thing 4 years ago? Yup, President Bush. It's all a part of being a candidate. Also keep in mind, that the things Bush says, even if they are false, aren't VIEWED as false by you, because he's already in office. We all automatically assume that because he says it, it's going to happen.

He's been in office 4 years, and he's talking about wanting to make health care and a bunch of stuff better for Americans. My question is why hasn't he done it already? He's had FOUR YEARS. If you or anyone comes back and says "it's because we are at war," then ask yourself... why are we worried about someone else's country and their well being than our own? Nobody else cares about US right now...

Another thing... Hasn't ANYONE ever thought about the fact that if we put those billions of dollars from the war with Iraq into our OWN national security, be it more/stronger border patrols, identification systems, etc...? We wouldn't even have to WORRY ABOUT THREATS FROM TERRORISTS!!!! I DO think the war with Afghanistan and the Taliban was justified. So don't get me wrong on that.

Look at some of the European countries. They have had terrorist attacks in the past, and instead of going to war with some other country, they focus on making sure it won't happen again.

Oh yea, anyone who calls me unpatriotic for my opinions can go ________. Fill in the blank, and be creative. Because saying that I'm "unpatriotic" for thinking of ways I wish my country would be BETTER, is like calling someone STUPID for reading a textbook on physics so they could better their knowledge on the subject. Remember, just beucase what they report conflicts with what fox news says, doesn't mean it is "useless liberal media." More people get the wrong facts from fox than ANY other news station. Don't believe me? Go ahead, ask, and I'll show you.

aNoodle · Oct 1, 2004

selavia said:

You're not starting anything bad. I was speaking of the view that politics is amoral and that any means however unscrupulous can justifiably be used in achieving political power. To stick the neo-cons with having to achieve their own unattainable spin (cleaning up Iraq on the cheap, nation building, and spreading democracy across the middle east) would be a perverse way of seeing them fall after four more years of further political isolation, bloodshed, and quagmire. Being forced to sleep in one's own bed can be kinda Machiavellian. It's an impulse that's not really fair.

BidDaddy said:

Oh come on, BigD, don't flatter yourself. LOL. We appear to agree on everything BMW. I only pick out your political posts on occasion because they are some of the more sensible of the partisan rants. I'll run with a few of Gizzy's next time around so nobody gets sore. [driving]

Big Daddy · Oct 1, 2004

Ok libs, I will just say told you so when the time comes! For now I'm with Gibby, sigh, why waste my breath..

Better than I could say it

Tonight's presidential debate...

Member

Senior Member

2

2

2

New Member

2

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

1000 Post Club

Senior Member

Senior Member

2

Senior Member

1000 Post Club

Senior Member