Debate thoughts...

[insein]

Good, bad, ugly?

I personally feel that Kerry tried to get away with alot of the usual party lies. I think he was hoping that everything he has said up to this point doesnt mean anything because no one was paying attention. I was glad to see the president take him to task on the indecision he showed when talking about iraq.

In the end Democrats will feel that Kerry had a good showing. He was articulate as he usually is but he didnt feel warm or emotional. They will harp on Bush's stuttering which is a miscalculation on their part, IMO. Focusing on the way he said things instead of the substance will make them look superficial.

Republicans will feel that Bush brought his message across well and responded to Kerry's questions effectively. I personally feel that Bush's openness and honesty on most of the questions hit me the most.

Ultimately, each side has already made up their own minds as to who won and nothing will change.

 

[Zhukov]

I'll be honest, I didn't think the President was aggressive enough, and I think it hurt him, as far as the debate was concerned. I think he stopped himself from saying what he wanted to say, and that's why he stuttered. And he did stutter, and he did repeatedly. The pundits tell me these debates are for the center and the undecided. Still, I want to hear what the President thinks. I could almost read his mind concerning what he really wanted to say concerning China, for example.

The Sen. didn't offer anything new nor did he give the public a new and intriguing glimpse of his personality.

Ultimately I think what should have been an overwhelming victory for the President is nothing more than already written off stalemate.


Incidentally, I still don't like the administration's stance on Russia, but, not unexpectedly, the Senator's response was worse.

 

[janeeng]

Agree with ya Z - I saw some looks come from Bush as if he wanted to say something else too! And Kerry really had to let us know how he served in Vietnam AGAIN!!! Big deal, others served a hell of a lot longer. Did you see when the PIG wife of Kerry got up on stage, how her arm in disgust came out towards Laura when she didn't run right over to her? I noticed that IMMEDIATELY!!!! Laura went over to George with Daughters and didn't acknowledge PIGGY quick enough!!! I am surprised she didn't call her a scumbag for not paying mind to her more quickly!

Other than that, I think Bush should have outlined the plan in Iraq better!! He still has my vote though.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, i think John Kerry did better than i expected. There were a few times he didnt make any sense grammaticly. The President looked alittle tired and yes he wasnt as aggressive as he could have been. But i think he made his points there are a couple of points i would have liked to have seen the President point out that John Kerry's vote against funding the troops was because we wouldnt raise taxes.

I think the part that amazed me, which i havent seen anyone else notice. was when Kerry talked about what he would do to deal with Iran. Now did i hear it right? did he say that he would open up talks and given Iran Nuclear fuel of that is what they wanted? It sure sounded like it to me, but the President didnt pick up on it and neither have any of the news people so im curious if i was listening right. Because thats deffinately the last thing i would have expected John kerry to say.

 

[Avatar4321]

Agree with ya Z - I saw some looks come from Bush as if he wanted to say something else too! And Kerry really had to let us know how he served in Vietnam AGAIN!!! Big deal, others served a hell of a lot longer. Did you see when the PIG wife of Kerry got up on stage, how her arm in disgust came out towards Laura when she didn't run right over to her? I noticed that IMMEDIATELY!!!! Laura went over to George with Daughters and didn't acknowledge PIGGY quick enough!!! I am surprised she didn't call her a scumbag for not paying mind to her more quickly!

Other than that, I think Bush should have outlined the plan in Iraq better!! He still has my vote though.

I know. i cant believe Kerry kept mentioning Vietnam. i mean come on already.

 

[janeeng]

I also think that Kerry was full of shit when he claimed he was approached by 2 military claiming on how much they need him!

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I think what happened is exactly what would happen when the two of them were in a debate. When you lay out the facts, Bush cannot defend them. He returns to acting like "the guy you'd want to have a beer with" but I don't want a president like that. I want one who will do his job, I'll never have this "fictional" beverage with either candidate.

Kerry appropriately noted that we were attacked and Bush, after Afghanistan, went after the wrong guy.

I remember who attacked us on 9/11...and it wasn't Hussein.

A person can have his own opinions and spin but not his own facts. This debate shows me what happens when Bush is presented with the facts.

 

[clumzgirl]

Gut reaction:
The president's message was stronger and clearer, but Kerry's delivery was better. Hell, my dog is more articulate than W, but that's not why we elect him. I don't care if he's mute, so long as he makes wise, strong decisions.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

The Bush Campaign is getting desperate:

From GeorgeWBush.com

"RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie On Reports John Kerry Wanted Timer Lights Removed From His Podium After Agreeing To Have Timer Lights On His Podium:

RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie: "Only John Kerry Could Be For The Lights Before He Was Against The Lights."

Give me a break...the flip-flopping talking point is breathing its last breath.

 

[Avatar4321]

KERRY: With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better.

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.

I found it. He did say he would offer Iran Nuclear fuel. This man wants to offer Iran nuclear fuel? Do you want a man in charge of the nation when he wants to offer our enemies the exact same thing they are supposed to be keeping our enemies from finding?!?!

Debate transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134152,00.html

 

[Zhukov]

I remember who attacked us on 9/11...and it wasn't Hussein.

Wasn't it though? No, not him personally of course, but that which he represents? A backwards society ruled by a tyrant who feeds his populace lies to divert their anger away from his own mismanagement and theft? A psychotic despot who obstructs the human need for freedom, among the very people over whom he purports to represent and defend, and diverts the ensuing aggression toward a source of his chosing, that source chosen for no other reason than he himself finds it disagreeable? A dictator who deprives and starves his own people to protect and insulate himself?

No, I think Saddam Hussein did attack us on 9/11, he and everyone like him in the world. He celebrated and honored those attacks, and for his complicity in the greater movement that manifested it, I consider him suitably culpable. He himself is one of the worst terrorists who has ever lived. He is a testament to the lowest depths of human depravity and he isn't worth the fate of a rabid dog.

Beyond that, and most importantly, to believe what is going on today around the world is the work of one man and not a global sociological/historical movement is to fundamentally misunderstand reality. And today to fundamentally misunderstand reality is as good as tying the noose yourself.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Are you seriously telling us that the ideology of Hussein makes him responsible for 9/11?

Let me be very clear here:

The people that attacked us on 9/11 were 19 terrorists from Al-Qaeda.

Just because Saddam sat at home with his t.v. with a big grin on his face does not make him responsible.

Good try trying to blend one's hatred for us into that person being culpable for an attack against us.

Yes it is a worldwide mentality against us but that does not make everyone who hates us SPECIFICALLY responsible for what happened on 9/11.

 

[Avatar4321]

Are you seriously telling us that the ideology of Hussein makes him responsible for 9/11?

Let me be very clear here:

The people that attacked us on 9/11 were 19 terrorists from Al-Qaeda.

Just because Saddam sat at home with his t.v. with a big grin on his face does not make him responsible.

Good try trying to blend one's hatred for us into that person being culpable for an attack against us.

Yes it is a worldwide mentality against us but that does not make everyone who hates us SPECIFICALLY responsible for what happened on 9/11.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

We were attacked by terrorism.

We have declared war on all regimes that support terrorism.

Saddam supported terrorism.

Hence, Saddam was part of the war on terror.

Its not a very difficult concept to understand.

So rather that vote for the President who was willing to make a tough choice to eliminate a threat to the world in this post 911 world, you want to vote for a candidate who said tonight that he would offer nuclear material to Iran, another one of our enemies in the war on terror.

How do you justify this?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

That is the type of simplistic thinking that is characteristic of the Bush campaign.

You CANNOT be attacked by a noun. We were not attacked by terrorism.

We were attacked by Al-Qaeda.

To try to make the syllogism you make leaves out the details which are very important.

Try this:

Saddam is a terrorist.
Al-Qaeda are terrorists.

Terrorists attacked us on 9/11.

It is against the rules of logic to lump the two together because they have similar qualities.

I am a human.
Al-Qaeda are humans.

Humans attacked us on 9/11.

Apparent where your error is?

 

[Zhukov]

You CANNOT be attacked by a noun.

Try to find an instance of someone being attacked by a verb.


Noun attackers:

Islamo-fascism
Communism
Nazism
Imperialism
Catholicism

You can be attacked by quite a few nouns, in fact, I'd hazard, you can only be attacked by nouns, because all ideas are nouns, and everything from "i want your land" to "you're an inferior form of life" is an idea.

 

[Zhukov]

Are you seriously telling us that the ideology of Hussein makes him responsible for 9/11?

No I'm telling you the ideology is responsible, and those who follow it must be destroyed, or surrendered to. Choose a side.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Give me an instance where one of these nouns attacked us. This is crazy talk that a noun can attack you. Parts of speech are non-physical.

People who believe in certain things can attack you.

Terrorism has never attacked us as terrorism. Men and women who believe in terrorism and work through it are the ones who attack us.

Let's talk reality and not a strange world where nouns are attacking humans.

 

[Zhukov]

I am a human.
Al-Qaeda are humans.

Humans attacked us on 9/11.

Apparent where your error is?

The earth is made of matter,

The sun is made of matter,

Matter is a giant ball of hydrogen udergoing a 10 billion year fusion reaction.

See where your error is?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

No you misunderstand and back my point up nicely. Reread my posts and see what I was trying to say about your syllogism with mine.

You say:

Saddam is a terrorist
Al-Qaeda are terrorists
Terrorists attacked us on 9/11

Therefore Saddam attacked us on 9/11.

My syllogism was proving the error in your logic:

I am a human
Al-Qaeda are humans
Humans attacked us on 9/11

Therefore I attacke us on 9/11.

Clearly erroneous logic.

Your post:

The Earth is made of matter
The sun is made of matter
Matter is a giant ball of hydrogen undergoing a 10 billion year fusion reaction

Therefore, the earth is a giant ball of hydrogen...

Thank you...your post was another example pointing out the erroneous logic claiming Saddam was responsible for 9/11 because he is a terrorist and terrorists attacked us on 9/11.

 

[Zhukov]

Give me an instance where one of these nouns attacked us.

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.