Debate thoughts...

[Bonnie]

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).

Well put!!! Might I suggest new Kerry T-shirts with a giant bullseye on it, America in the middle surrounded by the "Global Community" with the slogan Kerry thinks America needs to pass the Global Test before defending oursleves!

 

[007]

Well put!!! Might I suggest new Kerry T-shirts with a giant bullseye on it, America in the middle surrounded by the "Global Community" with the slogan Kerry thinks America needs to pass the Global Test before defending oursleves!

... and I wonder how many OTHER countries around the world will have to "pass the test"... or does the senator think that "America" is only one that needs to be held up to that?

 

[musicman]

Well put!!! Might I suggest new Kerry T-shirts with a giant bullseye on it, America in the middle surrounded by the "Global Community" with the slogan Kerry thinks America needs to pass the Global Test before defending oursleves!

LOL! And, on the back, how about a picture of Kerry handing a rolled-up copy of the Constitution into the U.N. men's room, saying, "Don't worry, Koffi - I've got you covered!"

I liked Bush's summation. Reaffirming that the U.S. will address U.S. interests irrespective of the "global community" was all he really needed to say about foreign policy.

 

[musicman]

... and I wonder how many OTHER countries around the world will have to "pass the test"... or does the senator think that "America" is only one that needs to be held up to that?

Ah, but you've gone right to the heart of the matter - the inherent moral inferiority of America!

 

[Bonnie]

LOL! And, on the back, how about a picture of Kerry handing a rolled-up copy of the Constitution into the U.N. men's room, saying, "Don't worry, Koffi - I've got you covered!"

I liked Bush's summation. Reaffirming that the U.S. will address U.S. interests irrespective of the "global community" was all he really needed to say about foreign policy.

:rotflmao: U.N. mens room LOL

 

[poebassman]

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.

Leherer: Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?


Kerry: Yes I do.. . :funnyface followed by fluff. Mentioned a "summit".

Bush: Sept 11, Taliban, Iraq, Libya

Leherer: Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?

Bush: :finger: No, I don't believe it's going to happen. I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead.

Kerry: I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. :firing:

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html


My thought is bush won because kerry didn't poke back as many times as bush did. Had kerry been agressive as bush was, he would have won. Substance wise, Kerry had command of the facts. Bush used canned responses that could have been pulled directly from the blogs. Again...bush had command of making his points stick which is why I think he won. Points don't have to be truthful when the opponent doesn't make a rebuttal.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I'm not surprised to hear that Kerry's style was better. I wouldn't really know because I didn't watch it (I already know I'd rather Bush be president over Kerry and I just don't like watching stuff like that). However, I am a little disappointed to hear that Bush didn't hammer him as much as he could have. He could have just ripped Kerry to shreds on just about everything he said.

Even if Kerry had made some points that I agree with (and it doesn't sound like he did) in the debates, it would not make a difference to me because he might not be singing the same tune the next day (hell, maybe not even the next minute ).

 

[Bonnie]

Liiberals were surprised at Kerry re debate.

www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/graham200410011024.asp

 

[Sandy73]

Mrs. Dog Face Kerry looked shitfaced ! He had a death grip on her so she would embarrase him or trip and fall on her face. :alco:

 

[janeeng]

Mrs. Dog Face Kerry looked shitfaced ! He had a death grip on her so she would embarrase him or trip and fall on her face. :alco:

Maybe it was to grab her so she would keep her BIG MOUTH shut and not call anyone a SCUM BAG!!!!

 

[Bonnie]

David Winston

www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29485.htm

Kerry's political performance waslight on specifics, heavy on criticism andplagued by inconsistencies that have characterized his positions on Iraq for more than a year.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Thought this was funny
Sorry if it's in the wrong place.

New Vietnamese Currency
exchange rate=Two billion ding dongs per two cents....

 

[modman]

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.

Like anyone in the Bush administration has to claim that Iraq was invlolved. This sounds like the "imminent threat" argument. Just because they don't come out and bluntly say it, does'nt mean they are'nt trying to spin this in different ways.

 

[modman]

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???

Well it does'nt help when your painted as a flip flopper. To me the whole flip flopper argument is nulled for me cause Bush flips and flops just as much or more as Kerry so I don't even listen to those arguments. What matters is who is smarter and can make better choices.

 

[Avatar4321]

Like anyone in the Bush administration has to claim that Iraq was invlolved. This sounds like the "imminent threat" argument. Just because they don't come out and bluntly say it, does'nt mean they are'nt trying to spin this in different ways.

The only person who argued we Iraq was an imminent threat was John Edwards. The administration has been consistant in saying that if we waited till Iraq was an imminent threat it would have been too later. Hence the idea of Preemption.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well it does'nt help when your painted as a flip flopper. To me the whole flip flopper argument is nulled for me cause Bush flips and flops just as much or more as Kerry so I don't even listen to those arguments. What matters is who is smarter and can make better choices.

ah but conistancy is important. Kerry couldnt even stay consistant in the debate last night.

The President is wrong for not getting international support in Iraq. Yet He is wrong for not taking on North Korea unilaterally.

Senator Kerry is against more nations gaining nuclear capabilities but is willing to give Iran those capabilities if they promise not to make weapons

Our troops are spread to thin, yet he is going to create two new units to deal with problems elsewhere around the world (Yet hasnt explained how he will without the draft)

He says the President has failed to plan how to win the peace in Iraq, and then proposes to do exactly what the President has done.

He cant even stay consistant for an hour and a half. you want him in charge for four years? This is a major issue.

But i suppose you are right. who has better judgement. Who is willing to give the Iranians nuclear power for promising not to make bombs again?

 

[Bonnie]

Well it does'nt help when your painted as a flip flopper. To me the whole flip flopper argument is nulled for me cause Bush flips and flops just as much or more as Kerry so I don't even listen to those arguments. What matters is who is smarter and can make better choices.

Hmm okay then Kerry made horrible choices and decisions in his career, so what your really saying is that Kerry is smarter because he's a liberal and believes in turing our soveriegnty over to countries like France, China, and Russia in times of war? And it still doesn't explain Kerry's constant contradictory statements so I guess your also saying Kerry is smarter because he's craftier (deceitfull)with his words. How can anyone be smart if they don't take a firm stand on an issue?

 

[musicman]

LOL! Liberals from coast to coast are clicking their heels together three times and saying:

"The flip-flop issue is dead."

"The flip-flop issue is dead."

"The flip-flop issue is dead."

Maybe if you all do it in unison, THAT will make it true.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

As far as the debates go, I don't change my mind based on who 'wins'. Why, as a conservative, would I all of a sudden change my vote because Kerry supposedly won? Really, the whole thing was stupid, because all I felt Kerry did was put his foot in his mouth. Again.

But I really thought Bush could have done a better job pinpointing him on his so-called plan for Iraq that he doesn't want to talk about unless he is elected.

Bush looked tired, and didn't look like he really wanted to be in the same room as Kerry (don't blame him, I wouldn't either). But Bush had a right to be tired. He spent all that day with the hurricane victims. Guess what Kerry did? Spent all day at the hotel spa, and even got a manicure, no less.

I really think Bush maybe should have put off the hurricane thing until today, so he could be rested.

Kerry is good at debate because that is what he does in his job as a senator. He has had a lot of practice in standing up and answering quesitons like he owns the room. That doesn't mean his answers are statements of fact-most of them are lies upon lies. I actually think that he has lied so much all throughout his life, that he does it, and not even realizing it. That's why he gets caught up in pandering to what ever is the popular thing to think or do at the time. And he has done it for so long, it's normal for him.

I used to be like him. Lying, and doing it so much, with such consistency, that I actually started to believe what I had lied about doing, had ACTUALLY happened. Then a lie caught up with me, and I got in some BIG trouble.

This is where I think Kerry is floundering with the Swift Boat thing. He more than likely had told his 'stories' to so many people, and told the same story over and over, then he starts believing it actually happened. Now someone has busted him, and he can't keep his story straight. For myself, I was actually in counseling for a while (about a year when I was 13) because of all the lying. It took a great deal of talking out what I was feeling and going through emotionally, because I didn't feel like I could talk to my parents, and also issues with my upbringing.

I think Kerry has the same problem I did, and needs help, and fast.

Another problem that I recognize in Kerry that I actually have in common with him (to some extent) is being indecisive. I believe this comes from being raised liberal. Liberal upbringings tend not to be very structured, and allow for kids to make TOO MANY decisions, and too much freedom, without any real guidance as to right and wrong. How are kids supposed to know off hand without you telling them what you expect first?

Liberals don't like absolutes, thus making it difficult for a child to make the right choice on something, if they have never been shown what that right choice was/is by example, or flat out telling them. They don't know what to expect, or know for sure what is right and wrong. And if their set boundaries are not clearly defined, they have a harder time learning right from wrong. I had a liberal upbringing very similar to the described situation, and I blame that for my being constantly indecisive about stuff, and sometimes lack of judgement on things. This is because I have a hard time thinking ahead, instead of what I will feel like immediately. I am aware of the problem, so I am working on it, and getting better, but I see this as a pattern in the liberal families. I also think that I may have ADD, as my 2 sisters have been diagnosed with it. But I don't use that as an excuse to get away with stuff. I just try to work around it.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Like anyone in the Bush administration has to claim that Iraq was invlolved. This sounds like the "imminent threat" argument. Just because they don't come out and bluntly say it, does'nt mean they ar'ent trying to spin this in different ways.

Spin what? Even the 9/11 Commission, which Democrats and Liberals were screaming for, said there were ties between Al-Qaeda and Saddam. We know he financially helped terrorists, we know he provided training for terrorists. It's not such a far flung possibility that Saddam was financially involved in the 9/11 attack, though there may never be any way of knowing for sure. Anyone that doesn't see that Saddam was a threat to help terrorists financially or by providing them with firepower is either blind, naive, or just plain stupid.

All of this is beside the point anyway. If Saddam was involved with 9/11 or not isn't the point, it's that 9/11 should have taught us we can't wait for terrorists and the like to attack us.