Debate thoughts...

[modman]

Kerry did a much better job than Bush you can't argue that. He projected himself as the 44th president very well. Bush had trouble uttering words when challenged as if he was nervous, sometimes pausing for painfully long intervals. Bush was definetly on the defensive and the only offense were the words "change his position" which got really old. Overall it was a great debate with lots of substance and I can really say there was a profound difference between the two candidates shown tonight. When John Kerry says he welcomes the debate on Iraq and foreign policy, HE MEANS IT! If more people tune in to the next debate, as I beleive was the trend in
'92, and Bush does'nt shape up, then John Kerry will walk away with it easy. There is just no comparison between the two. The question on weather or not John Kerry will be a strong and decisive leader has been answered to the undecideds tonight. And the republicans know the answer too even if they won't admit it.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Don't Clintonize the discussion. You know that we were discussing nouns such as terrorism, communism, fascism, etc.

A human is a noun in one sense. Humans are also physical entities. Communism, terrorism, etc. have NO physical counterparts. They are purely in the realm of ideas.

If you were the victim of a battery, good luck convincing ANYONE that it was communism that did it.

 

[Zhukov]

That is not what I said. What I said is terrorists attacked us. Al-Qaeda did not attack us because they are human, they attacked us because they are terrorists. Saddam is a terrorist, and supports terrorism, so in order to get rid of terrorism he should be gotten rid of, because he is just as responsible in his part for the historical movement that has led to such terrorist acts as 9/11.

You want to make an argument against the logic of this by saying al Qaeda are humans and so any or all humans attacked us, or al Qaeda are men so any or all men attacked us? Well, go on and make your arguments, you won't sway many people. Make a silly argument to absolve one of the worst socipaths of our century of guilt if it helps you sleep at night. When you wake up tommorow, wonder if you are really any better than he.

 

[Zhukov]

Bush was definetly on the defensive and the only offense were the words "change his position" which got really old.

Yes, he was quite repetitive, and I found myself shaking my head. Perhaps that was some sort of strategy to distance himself from the 'flip-flopper'.
At any rate I felt a lot of over-strategizing in his whole attitude.

 

[Zxenith]

Zhuk, sorry, but he got ya. You are trying to find ways to correlate two completely different things. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush has done his best to try to use phrases like "terrorism", "9/11", "Al-Qaeda", and so forth when discussing Iraq. But, a lie is a lie. Bush has proven that if you set your mind to it, you can justify going into any country you want. France did not support the United States. The United States is fighting terrorism. Therefore France must support terrorism, and therefore be destroyed!

 

[Zhukov]

But, a lie is a lie.

Give me a single example.

The United States is fighting terrorism. Therefore France must support terrorism, and therefore be destroyed!

Agreed.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

With that I will retire. When an argument becomes ad hominem it no longer warrents rebuttal.

Attack my arguments by attacking me all you want but it does not diminish the weight of the arguments.

 

[Zhukov]

Zhuk, sorry, but he got ya. You are trying to find ways to correlate two completely different things.

I'm not trying to 'find' anything. I see it clearly. I see our situation in the greater course of history and I see the consequences of our actions and our inactions. I also see partisans who would rather prove a single man wrong because they dislike him, even if that meant compromising the safety of their own nation, than listen to reason.

 

[Zhukov]

With that I will retire. When an argument becomes ad hominem it no longer warrents rebuttal.

Attack my arguments by attacking me all you want but it does not diminish the weight of the arguments.

Walk away.

 

[Avatar4321]

With that I will retire. When an argument becomes ad hominem it no longer warrents rebuttal.

Attack my arguments by attacking me all you want but it does not diminish the weight of the arguments.

he didnt attack you though. He attacked your argument. you just cant deal with it. sorry

 

[Avatar4321]

Zhuk, sorry, but he got ya. You are trying to find ways to correlate two completely different things. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush has done his best to try to use phrases like "terrorism", "9/11", "Al-Qaeda", and so forth when discussing Iraq. But, a lie is a lie. Bush has proven that if you set your mind to it, you can justify going into any country you want. France did not support the United States. The United States is fighting terrorism. Therefore France must support terrorism, and therefore be destroyed!

Problem is no one has claimed Iraq was involved 9/11. the argument is that we are waging a war against nations that support terrorism and that Saddam supports terrorism.

 

[theim]

And therein lies the Liberals/Democrats inability to grasp the idea of the War on Terror.

 

[MadMax]

I've given you several.

Ideas are what is important. Ideas are what drive people, what motivate masses, and what moves history. Nazism and commuism are ideas that have directly led to the deaths of millions of people. Islamo-fascism is just another idea in a long chain of murderous ideas. Certainly people (a noun) commit the acts, act on these ideas (another noun), but perhaps you'd rather ignore historical trends and have an insignificant semantic argument, when outside your walls, people with ideas are conspiring to gut you if only they had the chance.

sic em Zuhk!!!!

 

[no1tovote4]

I was exceedingly happy when he put Kerry to task for insulting our allies directly. It is extremely irresponsible for one who would lead the very coalition that he is speaking of if he were to win to call them bribed and coerced, it has got to be the most collosal error I have seen from a Candidate for office.

Then insulting the leader of Iraq and describing him as a puppet, the same leader will still lead when he gets into office. By describing him as a puppet he has made the job in Iraq 30 times harder and gave Al Qaeda another recruiting tool.

And Kerry doesn't even realize his mistake. He would not own up to the fact that if he became President it wouldn't even be a "bribed and coerced" coalition, they would become the coalition of the denied and insulted and many would simply leave, Kerry doesn't even acknowledge the important addition of those allies he simply didn't get it.

He keeps saying they would all come to the table for a new beginning, but I wouldn't even show up as a leader of a country if he implied I was so irresponsible that I would send kids to die because I was bribed or that we were such a weak nation that we allowed ourselves to be coerced. My answer would be the same as the French, "Bite Me!"

Bush's answers were direct, though not inspiring they were often clear as opposed to Kerry's.

Kerry kept reiterating that his plan is no different than Bush's other than sending even more troops. He didn't realize the dichotomy involved of his idea that lowering the amount of troops in 6 months as he was adding troops to the pile.

Bush answered that with facts about the number that have been trained, and the countries that have been added as trainers. UAE, Jordan, NATO, etc. Kerry kept saying I will do it better and I have a plan, but never made a clear enunciation of any plan whatsoever. It was reminiscent of Nixon and his secret plan to win in Viet Nam. I just wonder how he would be able to do that with the coalition of the denied and insulted his only allies as his pet allies of France and Germany have repeatedly reiterated that they will not go regardless of Kerry's promises that he can get them to go.

Anyway, I would say that this debate was a wash. Kerry was more eloquent, Bush had good points but nobody self-destructed. A wash is bad for Kerry as the polls will likely not change.

 

[5stringJeff]

My thoughts on the debate...

Stylistically, I think Kerry had the upper hand. He seemed more collected and more articulate. Bush, in his attempt to appear relaxed, made himself look too short. I hope he stands up striaght for the next two debates. Bush also seemed to be a little less contained, often voicing his desire for the extra thrity seconds right as Kerry finished his statements. Kerry did a good job of putting Bush on the defense through much of the debate, though I think Bush made his points clear.

On substance, I think Bush gets a slight edge. Kerry made his points, but then wanted it both ways on a few things: for example, he called for more troops in Iraq, but then said that he wants to start bringing troops home. Bush drove home the point very well that Kerry called Iraq the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time; Kerry hammered home the point (again) that he served in Vietnam. As has been said, Kerry kept talking about his plan for Iraq; the only specifics (besides the more troops/less troops dichotomy) were for summits. (Typical of a liberal - always wanting to talk about the problems instead of acting on them.) Bush could have been a bit more forceful about how well the war is going against al-Qaeda; he menitoned a couple of time that 75% of AQ's leadership is dead or imprisoned, but I think Kerry was really trying to attack there and Bush didn't pick it up.

But Kerry's "global test" represents the best sound bite of the debate. What the hell is a global test? Bush's response was perfect: the only test that needs to be made is how to keep the country safe.

 

[Bonnie]

Kerry did a much better job than Bush you can't argue that. He projected himself as the 44th president very well. Bush had trouble uttering words when challenged as if he was nervous, sometimes pausing for painfully long intervals. Bush was definetly on the defensive and the only offense were the words "change his position" which got really old. Overall it was a great debate with lots of substance and I can really say there was a profound difference between the two candidates shown tonight. When John Kerry says he welcomes the debate on Iraq and foreign policy, HE MEANS IT! If more people tune in to the next debate, as I beleive was the trend in
'92, and Bush does'nt shape up, then John Kerry will walk away with it easy. There is just no comparison between the two. The question on weather or not John Kerry will be a strong and decisive leader has been answered to the undecideds tonight. And the republicans know the answer too even if they won't admit it.

Yes that's great, but what good are Kerry's words if he never sticks to what he actually believes. Sitting on Senate comittees gives Kerry fact background but he wasted his 20 years there making bad decisions. 45 days before election he finally settles on a position he is going to stick with, and now kerry suporters are thrilled he finally is throwing them crumbs and sticking to one message, what kind of canditate is that???

 

[dmp]

"Global Test"

"Lock Box"

 

[clumzgirl]

To GOP Jeff:

 

[dilloduck]

My thoughts on the debate...

Stylistically, I think Kerry had the upper hand. He seemed more collected and more articulate. Bush, in his attempt to appear relaxed, made himself look too short. I hope he stands up striaght for the next two debates. Bush also seemed to be a little less contained, often voicing his desire for the extra thrity seconds right as Kerry finished his statements. Kerry did a good job of putting Bush on the defense through much of the debate, though I think Bush made his points clear.

On substance, I think Bush gets a slight edge. Kerry made his points, but then wanted it both ways on a few things: for example, he called for more troops in Iraq, but then said that he wants to start bringing troops home. Bush drove home the point very well that Kerry called Iraq the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time; Kerry hammered home the point (again) that he served in Vietnam. As has been said, Kerry kept talking about his plan for Iraq; the only specifics (besides the more troops/less troops dichotomy) were for summits. (Typical of a liberal - always wanting to talk about the problems instead of acting on them.) Bush could have been a bit more forceful about how well the war is going against al-Qaeda; he menitoned a couple of time that 75% of AQ's leadership is dead or imprisoned, but I think Kerry was really trying to attack there and Bush didn't pick it up.

But Kerry's "global test" represents the best sound bite of the debate. What the hell is a global test? Bush's response was perfect: the only test that needs to be made is how to keep the country safe.

Good analysis. Bottom line
Bush---Stay the course and it ain't gonna happen overnight
Kerry----I have a better way to fight this war---have summits and get other countries to help. (Didn't bother to say who)

 

[musicman]

Kerry's debate performance was liberalism in microcosm: Long on style, short on substance (I have a plan???!!). And, since Job #1 is to conceal and disguise the essential ugliness and bankruptcy of the true agenda, I'd say Mr. Kerry failed miserably (may he wear the term, "global test", for all time).