PDA

View Full Version : Bush vs Kerry Debate



quackweb
10-01-2004, 01:11 PM
Hello,

Surprisingly enough I haven't seen anything about the election (for the US that is) taking place in November yet. I'm a very political person so of course I watched the debate last night on all major networks in the US. Now speaking from a Democratic side (which I am so there may be a little bias) I thought Kerry did an excellent job last night, his points were firm, he didn't stutter, he did pause and he didn't make a fool out of himself. However on the other hand we have Bush that pretty much sucked during the debate. I know that Kerry is a much more skilled debater than Bush but Bush pretty much made a fool of himself. His facial reactions were not something I would expect from the President of the United States and of course, he promised more of the same old.

Now because I am just trying to focus on the debate and not a thousand issues and policies between the two, let us examine how the debate went. Now I am one for debates I really am, and I'm a strong support of Democrats and Kerry but this debate wasn't the best presidential debate I've ever seen. Throughout the night, the continued to rattle on about the war in Iraq and constantly ragging on each other. Now where I come from, they is NOT a debate. A presidential debate is to make a point and discuss what the future leaders of our country or any other country would like to accomplish or change during their term. I feel neither candidate did either of these. They should have focused a fraction of the time what they really did into what has already been done into something more productive such as discussing what they feel they can contribute to the country.

I hope the next two debates between Bush and Kerry don't go down the same path as this one but focusing more on what each can contribute to the country and what they would like to change.

That's my two cents, what's yours?

Hiltonizer
10-05-2004, 02:55 PM
I think alot of people are judging the debate based solely on appearances.

Bush is by no means articulate, but that doesnt effect his ability to make a strong point on the issues.

When it came down to anything substantive, Bush absolutely assimilated Kerry. Kerry did not make 1 valid point that should make anyone want to vote for him... he just looked the part.

The only votes picked up by either candidate were undecided voters, and if you were undecided before the debate... you were too dumb to comprehend what each man was saying. Hense Kerry got more out of the debate than Bush.

Aesthetics: Kerry
Substance: Bush
Who came out better in the polls: Bush gained 1%

Wasn't pretty, but thats a Bush win in my book.

But screwem both.. Badnarik in 04!

nobaloney
10-05-2004, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Hiltonizer
When it came down to anything substantive, Bush absolutely assimilated Kerry.
According to dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assimilate), that's a very interesting choice of words.

So Kerry, to Bush, is a form of nutrient?

:)

Jeff

Hiltonizer
10-06-2004, 06:10 PM
stupid literal dictionary...

how's about: "ate for breakfast"

nobaloney
10-06-2004, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Hiltonizer
stupid literal dictionary...

how's about: "ate for breakfast"
Of course ;) .

But then I couldn't have had my fun writing back.

Jeff
(who proudly states he's an equal opportunity heckraiser and that you can't tell who he's voting for based on his replies on this thread)

Icheb
10-08-2004, 03:42 AM
First note that I'm not American, nor have I seen the debate...

Personally I think that another 4 years of Bush wouldn't do much good for America.
Bush attacked Iraq due to the fact of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction... So far the best weapon of mass destruction I've seen, is Bush.
He didn't give anyone any evidence, he began 2 wars while being president, it's also true that the disaster with the WTC changed much in the US, but would this really be a good reason to start waging war against everyone without the coorperation of anyone (as in, the US should have waited for a reaction from the european commission).

Bush really changed the way how a lot of people see Americans, but there could be a discussion about this being a negative or positive thing.
Kerry on the other hand haven't had a chance yet.

Quackweb: from what I heard about the debate, you're right. But perhaps it's just the way the American people want it. If not, they should perhaps speak up themselves.
Or are you considered being a terrorist of you speak up against the ruling authory ?

*Note that English isn't my first language and I most likely have some nice errors in it here, due to the fact I don't want to run it through a grammar checking program*

Hiltonizer
10-08-2004, 06:25 AM
1) Every president in the last 20 years has executed military action in Iraq, including Clinton- who'm would have done more if it werent for the lewinsky scandal (didnt want it to look like a cover)

2) European Commssion? As far as Im concerned we wasted too much time with the UN.... the 19th resolution wouldn't have been the charm. America doesn't need the UN's permission to defend itself.

3) If the international community looks at us differently as a result, oh well... we did what we had to do. We can't have a president who acts based on popularity.

4) People can say there were no WMD's.. fine, but dont forget Kerry voted for this war too. We wasted so much time with the UN all the weapons were probably smuggled out of the country into Iran.

</rant>

Icheb
10-09-2004, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by Hiltonizer
1) Every president in the last 20 years has executed military action in Iraq, including Clinton- who'm would have done more if it werent for the lewinsky scandal (didnt want it to look like a cover)
After reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton I tend to believe you could be right on this one.



2) European Commssion? As far as Im concerned we wasted too much time with the UN.... the 19th resolution wouldn't have been the charm. America doesn't need the UN's permission to defend itself.

Well, than, why not start a war with everyone who opposes or thinks differently than the US ?
There is more than just the US in this world...
It's true that no country will need permission to defend itsself, but consider that America currently is on more of a violent rampage than the country's in the so called 'axis of evil' have been. (Have you ever see that flash movie about the axis of evil ? ;))
Why not just nuke all those country's, if America would be the last country still standing on the face of the Earth, perhaps there would no longer be any problems with other country's (note that I write this to illustrate my opinion, it's not what I think...)



3) If the international community looks at us differently as a result, oh well... we did what we had to do. We can't have a president who acts based on popularity.

You did what you had to do... What did you have to do exactly ? - It's not that I'm defending Saddam or Bin Laden, but was this really the right solution ?



4) People can say there were no WMD's.. fine, but dont forget Kerry voted for this war too. We wasted so much time with the UN all the weapons were probably smuggled out of the country into Iran.
</rant>
Ah, so all weapons and evidence dissappeared because of the UN ?
I find that a bit hard to believe, all evidence given was really (if I remember correctly) an animation about a chemical truck/lab & some vague documents.
I don't really know if Kerry voted for or agaist this war, but I don't think he would be entirely against it. But perhaps he would think a bit more before acting.
So Iran was it ?
Why not attack Iran than ?
Or was it another country ?

The US has the most money flowing into the military in the entire world (correct me if I'm wrong), and yet, they don't seem to be able to come up with enough evidence to convince everyone the (so called) intelligence was right.
Take a look at England, Blair now has a lot of problems due to the fact he can't let everyone see evidence.

I think btw you are going to vote on Bush ?