Who won the debate?

Hmm?

I voted Kerry. I also think putting stupid comedic choices in this poll defeats its purpose. Take NADER off there immediately.

Replace Nader with neither and Ill vote

Kerry killed Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

Replace Nader with neither and Ill vote

---

There's no point in you voting at all if you don't think anybody won.

I'm writing in Mickey mouse.

The Daily Show special is starting! They'll tell us who won.

The terrorists won.

Kerry visibly destroyed Bush on the anti-proliferation issue, and I think that was the moment when the debate was truly won. I'd also like to point out another Bush mislead, he said the I.Q.E. was "brought to justice" yet there leader is a free man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mzo

The Daily Show special is starting! They'll tell us who won.

---

I have to wait three hours for it.

Sad times.

I was playing a game with headphones on when the debate was on but I caught some of it. It seemed to me like Kerry said the same stuff that he's been saying without bringing anything new to the table. Bush seemed to defend well while Kerry seemed a little worked up and nervous during the whole thing. I may be wrong on some shit cause I was playing a game so nobody jump on me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

There's no point in you voting at all if you don't think anybody won.

---

Do you honestly think that one or the other WON this debate. I just saw back and forth bickering that didnt prove anything. I watched the debate hoping for one or the other to get pwned and didnt see it. Bush held his ground and defended well against Kerry's accusations about the war I thought(but like you guys I think Bush is an idiot so I wasnt expecting him to defend so well). Kerry just didnt bring any alternative plans to end or fix this bad thing that Bush got us into even though he said he had them. Change dynamics and dont build bases in Iraq :wtf: - KTHNX - next.

Bush countered everything he had to say --- jusy not as well given his limited vocab. and annoying pauses ( you could just hear the gears turning in his head at one point.)

But like I said neither one impressed me - so neither one won the debate for me --- give me a Neither option dammit ----- or I vote for the daughters :curse:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

I was playing a game with headphones on when the debate was on but I caught some of it. It seemed to me like Kerry said the same stuff that he's been saying without bringing anything new to the table. Bush seemed to defend well while Kerry seemed a little worked up and nervous during the whole thing. I may be wrong on some shit cause I was playing a game so nobody jump on me.

---

Yeah you are way wrong.

In all the post debate polls I've seen Kerry is the clear winner. It was like 54% in his favor from some survey done where people decided who won each question. On one channel they had six undecided voters who after the debate said they thought Kerry won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

I voted Kerry. I also think putting stupid comedic choices in this poll defeats its purpose. .

---

you dont think their daughters won, they totally got to hang with paris hilton after this publicity. I dont think either one really won. Bush was so on message it seemed that he was ignoring the questions,and kerry's response to what he will do iraq was the best non-answer ever, essentaly taking the whole answer with critiquing bush,and not answering the question at all. nobody said anything really and i was unimpressed with it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

I was playing a game with headphones on when the debate was on but I caught some of it. It seemed to me like Kerry said the same stuff that he's been saying without bringing anything new to the table. Bush seemed to defend well while Kerry seemed a little worked up and nervous during the whole thing. I may be wrong on some shit cause I was playing a game so nobody jump on me.

---

Yeah, I think you missed most of it. Kerry seemed nervous for his first 90 seconds, but after that he pretty much owned Bush as far as debating goes. Obviously he didn't own him if you agree with Bush anyway.

Really though, I wish Nader could have been in there too, but obviously that will never happen. He's on the ballot in the majority of the states. A real alternative would be nice, I don't see Bush and Kerry as being so distinct. Distinct enough for me to vote, but not nearly enough to provide important choices.

Kerry, hands down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

I dont think either one really won. Bush was so on message it seemed that he was ignoring the questions,and kerry's response to what he will do iraq was the best non-answer ever, essentaly taking the whole answer with critiquing bush,and not answering the question at all. nobody said anything really and i was unimpressed with it all.

---

IAWTP

Were you people watching the same debate? When Kerry pressed Bush on North Korea and the true threat of nuclear proliferation in rogue nations and nations that ARE allies of Al Queda, Bush folded like a house of cards. He kept trying to bring it back to Iraq, and for once I think the people realized how ridiculous it was.

you know, for a second i thought you were andrew because of your av/sig combo, and i was wondering what andrew was on about, now i got it. Yep gozen, got it, bush said nothing and was clearly owned, gotcha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Were you people watching the same debate? When Kerry pressed Bush on North Korea and the true threat of nuclear proliferation in rogue nations and nations that ARE allies of Al Queda, Bush folded like a house of cards. He kept trying to bring it back to Iraq, and for once I think the people realized how ridiculous it was.

---

Yeah, and noones perfect. Bush might not have a good plan for fixing this other than non bipartisan talks, but thats the only idea that Kerry had were just bipartisan talks. Either way there is just a lot of talking going on there , and talk is cheap. If Kerry wanted to own this debate he should give more solid ideas of how to fix these than just mud slinging with nothing to back it up, - this is also why I hate the time constraints on these things- makes it hard to flesh out ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

you know, for a second i thought you were andrew because of your av/sig combo, and i was wondering what andrew was on about, now i got it. Yep gozen, got it, bush said nothing and was clearly owned, gotcha.

---

If I'm wrong on what I said I'd sure like for you to show me. Because the last thing I want to be accused of is wearing rose-colored glasses while watching this debate. All politics aside though, frost. What do you think of the new av/sig combo? Is it the new hotness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

Yeah, and noones perfect. Bush might not have a good plan for fixing this other than non bipartisan talks, but thats the only idea that Kerry had were just bipartisan talks. Either way there is just a lot of talking going on there , and talk is cheap. If Kerry wanted to own this debate he should give more solid ideas of how to fix these than just mud slinging with nothing to back it up, - this is also why I hate the time constraints on these things- makes it hard to flesh out ideas.

---

While I agree I'd like a more detailed explanation on his plans to stop nuclear proliferation (like how he'd contain the Russian nuclear black market in four years) that really isn't the purpose of a debate. The purpose was to show how he would do things differently than Bush, and I think he atleast did that, whether you agree with him or not. That was one of his biggest challenges coming into this debate, distinguishing himself from his opponent. I think he did that.

I heard that Bush was handling Korea with pressure from five other nations (including China, which is pretty major for Korea).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

I heard that Bush was handling Korea with pressure from five other nations (including China, which is pretty major for Korea).

---

I think Mike McCurry phrased it best when talking to CNN after the debate when he said that Chinese involvement has infact weakened our position in the world when it shows we have to go to China to reach a diplomatic solution with Korea because we're too afraid of showing some sort of 'weakness' by doing so ourselves.

I can understand the idea behind it though. It'd be pretty telling of the administration's faults if it pushed for a diplomatic solution to disarming a confirmed rogue state in possession of WMDs, when we invaded the last one with only suspicions of them and are in the midst of a grueling occupation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

I think Mike McCurry phrased it best when talking to CNN after the debate when he said that Chinese involvement has infact weakened our position in the world when it shows we have to go to China to reach a diplomatic solution with Korea because we're too afraid of showing some sort of 'weakness' by doing so ourselves.

---

So it was wrong to go into Iraq without UN support, but it shows weakness to have foreign help with Korea?

Having 'foreign help' and relying on a nation that is only slightly less a threat to the U.S. to look out for ours and the world's interests are two different things entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Having 'foreign help' and relying on a nation that is only slightly less a threat to the U.S. to look out for ours and the world's interests are two different things entirely.

---

Riiiiight. Political spin is so fucking retarded.

Especially when people who're just as guilty of it try and paint themselves as above it. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Especially when people who're just as guilty of it try and paint themselves as above it. :rolleyes:

---

Pardon me? I made no political spin. I support neither candidate, neither party. I have no bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan in an earlier thread

It's only a moral justification, and I've never heard anyone argue that "liberating Iraq" was the only (or even the main) reason we went there. The real reason we took out Saddam was because of a perceived national security threat. Being able to overthrow a shitty dictator just added to the case for war.

---

Both inaccurate and almost exactly the Bush camp's spin on the war. In fact, nearly all your posts in that thread were in defense of Bush's decision. But, hey, I understand if you changed your mind. That's fair. However, saying you never supported either isn't what the facts show.

But, lets let this discussion end here or start in a new thread. I'd hate to see a good thread like this one derail so soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Both inaccurate and almost exactly the Bush camp's spin on the war. In fact, nearly all your posts in that thread were in defense of Bush's decision.

---

That doesn't read like a defense to me--that reads like a statement of facts. I don't recall saying that Bush was right or Bush was wrong. I do recall sifting through the shit and stating the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Were you people watching the same debate? When Kerry pressed Bush on North Korea and the true threat of nuclear proliferation in rogue nations and nations that ARE allies of Al Queda, Bush folded like a house of cards. He kept trying to bring it back to Iraq, and for once I think the people realized how ridiculous it was.

---

Yet, Kerry boasted how he would bring better equipment to the soldiers in Iraq and Bush pointed out how Kerry voted against a multi-billion dollar plan, to help fund the operations there. I saw no clear winner in this debate.

Anyone who did not watch the debate = Teh Winnar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Yet, Kerry boasted how he would bring better equipment to the soldiers in Iraq and Bush pointed out how Kerry voted against a multi-billion dollar plan, to help fund the operations there. I saw no clear winner in this debate.

---

This has been discussed in other threads. When he voted against the 87 billion it was because the bill had changed from its original form (which he did vote for) and he voted accordingly. That's how politics work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

I also think putting stupid comedic choices in this poll defeats its purpose.

---

It has a purpose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

If I'm wrong on what I said I'd sure like for you to show me. Because the last thing I want to be accused of is wearing rose-colored glasses while watching this debate. All politics aside though, frost. What do you think of the new av/sig combo? Is it the new hotness?




.

---

i like it, that was one of my favorite bits for ferral(other than the bill brasky which was snl's finest hour)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

I may be wrong on some shit cause I was playing a game so nobody jump on me.

---

So if you didn't really watch the debate, why are you commenting on it?

I meant to watch the debate but some crap came up and I only caught about 10 minutes of it.

I do notice though, there's a few TNL regulars who have yet to post in the debate threads.

I won the debate.

At the end of the debate some guy yelled out "HEY AMERICA! YOU SUCK!"
That guy was me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Yet, Kerry boasted how he would bring better equipment to the soldiers in Iraq and Bush pointed out how Kerry voted against a multi-billion dollar plan, to help fund the operations there. I saw no clear winner in this debate.

---

From what I understand, Kerry didn't vote for the plan because it was pretty much a blank check, and didn't appropritate the money properly. For some reason, Kerry didn't do a good job of replying with that to explain the reason for his vote.

I think Kerry was definitely the winner. Regardless of the weight behind his words, he was poised, articulate, and gave the impression of posessing an extraordinary breadth of knowledge of the issues. Bush, meanwhile, was very inarticulate, was bullheaded, had his usual doofus aura, and wore an assholish smirk through 90% of the proceedings.

Bush's defenses were knee-jerk and not explained to much degree. They were basically "but I did that" or "I never did that", with maybe a very small example thrown in where, were Kerry's attack off-base, a detailed answer could have easily dispelled that attack. That, to me, translates as a) he is a bad debater who cannot be bothered to study up and recount events convincingly, or b) the attack is correct and he simply memorized tenuous examples of rightdoing to diffuse the question. I'm thinking a lit of both, more b than a. But either way, not good traits for the main representative of our country to posess.

I don't agree with all of Kerry's views or plans, or lack thereof, but when you boil it down the presidency is a committee, not singular. He seems a lot more likely to be open-minded, weigh options and possibilities, come to a concensus, and act accordingly, whereas Bush seems like he gets in one mindset and that's it, the end, he is gonna ride his personal position out come hell or high water. There's something to be said for convictions, but Bush is more on the side of plain and simple bullheaded, and he reinforced that in this debate.

Now, getting to the president as singular, their main faculty is as a representative, as a face to be associated with our country, to our people and to the world. Once more, Kerry proved here that he has poise and can speak articulately, which is the most important trait people are going to judge the president, and by association his country, by. Bush is simply a bumbling, inarticulate man that has, not coincidentally, greatly reduced our nation's stock and respect in the rest of the world, especially notable given the context of us as having just been unfairly attacked, which would normally rally people/nations towards us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

Do you honestly think that one or the other WON this debate. I just saw back and forth bickering that didnt prove anything.:

---

Then you didn't watch the debate. I'm sorry but that was the first time in this entire election they actually have addressed the issues of this election.

There was no bickering, there were jabs, but no bickering. Bush constantly looking like a kid being given vegetables for desert didn't help the image you have in your head about it, but there was no bickering.

There was something going on, and it may be the only thing John Kerry is not awkward at, and that is debating and thinking through straight up issues.

George Bush did nothing for himself by looking visibly annoyed, and using statements he made in the beginning of the debate (i.e."...american troops do not need a president who thinks that what they do is wrong place, wrong time...", comes to mind) as fallbacks when he had no real answers, and folks I think something was made abundantly clear last night, as he missed the opportunities to capitalize on mistakes made, is that Bush has no answers.

John Kerry almost singlehandedly took away the flip-flopper handle the Right has branded him with at this debate, but this is still G.W's election to lose, one or two more public appearances like that, and he will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

i like it, that was one of my favorite bits for ferral(other than the bill brasky which was snl's finest hour)

---

www.whitehousewest.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

John Kerry almost singlehandedly took away the flip-flopper handle the Right has branded him with at this debate, but this is still G.W's election to lose, one or two more public appearances like that, and he will.

---

Giuliani was trying to argue to John Stewart that Kerry was flip-flopping as much as ever.

I didn't see him doing that, either =/ I guess you gotta do what you gotta do for your party affiliation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

Yeah, and noones perfect. Bush might not have a good plan for fixing this other than non bipartisan talks, but thats the only idea that Kerry had were just bipartisan talks. Either way there is just a lot of talking going on there , and talk is cheap. If Kerry wanted to own this debate he should give more solid ideas of how to fix these than just mud slinging with nothing to back it up, - this is also why I hate the time constraints on these things- makes it hard to flesh out ideas.

---

There are two more man. He will.

For the record I disliked Kerry immensely until Iast night. Something about putting a guy as naturally uncomfortable as John Kerry next to a guy as strangely annoyed as George Bush, really reminds how pathetic and petty detailed his campaign and his presidency really has been..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mzo

Giuliani was trying to argue to John Stewart that Kerry was flip-flopping as much as ever.

I didn't see him doing that, either =/ I guess you gotta do what you gotta do for your party affiliation.

---

Yeah you sponser the Repub's or the Dem's and your in it for the long hall, for chrissake just watch Donald Rumsfeld mistake Saddam Hussien for Osma Bin Laden like six times in that last address he gave.

The spin really is a dignity cruncher.

I don't mind Bush, I know very little about politics; but watching this debate I saw Kerry clearly sweep Bush entirely. And not just because Bush is a horrid public speaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVS

Anyone who did not watch the debate = Teh Winnar.

---

http://the-nextlevel.com/board/showp...0&postcount=12

A winner is me. I was getting it on during the debates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thief~Silver

I don't mind Bush, I know very little about politics; but watching this debate I saw Kerry clearly sweep Bush entirely. And not just because Bush is a horrid public speaker.

---

Well, what about Poland?

I can't believe Kerry forgot to list Poland. What a chump.

I think all in all Satsuki had some good points, but Mzo won the overall debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave is ok

I think all in all Satsuki had some good points, but Mzo won the overall debate

---

Nah, Satsuki has teh B00bers so she wins...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134165,00.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick Morris

"Bush was as unfocused, undisciplined, unenergetic ... as he was during the pre-primary debates in 2000," said Morris, a strong critic of Kerry's policy positions. The president was "superb" when he spoke about American casualties or the need to win the War on Terror, but "I got the feeling he was distracted, he didn't answer questions quickly, he stumbled all over himself."

---

Morris about summed it up for me. Repetitive should be in that assessment too though I'd say the same with Kerry and his reminders of having been in Vietnam. I hate Kerry very much, but keeping it objective, I have to say he pretty much had his way for the most part. Bush gave him 3 debates in total which he may very well regret.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lithium

So if you didn't really watch the debate, why are you commenting on it?

I meant to watch the debate but some crap came up and I only caught about 10 minutes of it.

I do notice though, there's a few TNL regulars who have yet to post in the debate threads.

---

I did watch the debate, the TV is right next to my computer but I had headphones on and missed a lot of it. Sort of like watching a show while playing a game, you catch small parts of it.

We watched the debate in class today (the part centering on iraq and security). I personally don't give a rat's ass about politics or know anything about it at all, but Kerry just seemed to come out on top. Bush isn't that great of a public speaker and Kerry just seemed more poised.

So there's my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nomi

We watched the debate in class today (the part centering on iraq and security). I personally don't give a rat's ass about politics or know anything about it at all, but Kerry just seemed to come out on top. Bush isn't that great of a public speaker and Kerry just seemed more poised.

So there's my opinion.

---

Kerry definitely seemed more confident. Look how many gulps of water Bush was taking- likely a sign of nervousness, as was his stuttering every now and then that put Porky Pig to shame.

DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gameoverDude

Kerry definitely seemed more confident. Look how many gulps of water Bush was taking- likely a sign of nervousness, as was his stuttering every now and then that put Porky Pig to shame.

---

Confident? Kerry seemed so much more nervous to me, just that Bush can't speak in public for shit.

Yeah, Kerry was hammering out his ideas and Bush just fumbled around with long pauses and bouts of 'Um...' every now and then. He looked like a nervous school kid giving a class presentation he wasn't prepared for.

Where the hell is Yoshi?

This is stupid. It doesnt matter who won. If you support Bush, you will think Bush came out on top. If you support Kerry (well, if you dont support Bush I guess), you will think Kerry came out on top.

I didnt see the debate myself, but its obvious that neither of them really won. There wasnt a knockout blow of sorts and with an election like this, where most voters made up their mind 5 months ago, thats what you need to claim victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

This is stupid. It doesnt matter who won. If you support Bush, you will think Bush came out on top. If you support Kerry (well, if you dont support Bush I guess), you will think Kerry came out on top.

I didnt see the debate myself, but its obvious that neither of them really won. There wasnt a knockout blow of sorts and with an election like this, where most voters made up their mind 5 months ago, thats what you need to claim victory.

---

I will agree with you that Bush supporters didn't change there minds after this debate and still think Bush is the better man and everything, but in terms of overal confidence and arguement, Kerry did dominate. Kerry was more confident, gave better responses, didn't pause for minutes on end or try to think of the words he was trying to say, and was overall more intelligent. Now again, I'm not saying because of this debate Kerry is going to win or get all of Bush's voters, but it was obvious that Kerry was the better debater here.

Even O'Reilly and Michael Savage agree that Kerry won the debate. Not based on the things he said, but the way he said them and carried himself.

I listened to the debate on the radio, and didn't see anything in that regards. My opinion is that neither of them said a damned thing new, and neither of them had any points that the other couldn't parry. It seemed pretty obvious that the questions were meant to put Bush on the defensive, and I don't think he did a bad job of shrugging them off...save for his usual Bush-speak.

Anyone who is thinking of voting for Kerry thinks he won.
Anyone who is thinking of voting for Bush thinks he won.

There never will be a complete winner. 54% is not a all out winner. :\

Politics are lame because everyone is biased.

College humor has a great video up off bush being a stumbling idiot. I don't know what you guys are saying about him not seeming nervous, he seems nervous enough in this footage. While Kerry is all smiles.

http://www.collegehumor.com/?movie_id=78871

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelassassin

Anyone who is thinking of voting for Kerry thinks he won.
Anyone who is thinking of voting for Bush thinks he won.

Politics are lame because everyone is biased.

---

I personally, as said, don't give a shit about politics. I don't give a crap who wins.

Kerry just seemed more composed and imposing, therefor, to me he won the debate. His arguments left a stronger impression on me. I think that justifies a debate win from my view. I didn't have a predisposition either way from the start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

Where the hell is Yoshi?

---

That's what I'd like to know.





... ironically, I think he's still in Canada.

Kerry won. It was like Abe Lincoln versus the high school dropout. Of course, Bush probably "... ... ... uhhmmmm ... ... ..." "dudn't" think so.

Could it be possible to match up a more eloquent, articulate speaker with such a dunce? There were so many moments where our President just didn't know what the heck to say. Maybe it's because somebody didn't write it for him this time.

Presidents giving speeches that other men wrote is a time honored tradition. Anything else is just not civilized

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bacon McShig

Bush, meanwhile, was very inarticulate, was bullheaded, had his usual doofus aura, and wore an assholish smirk through 90% of the proceedings.

---

It wasn't his usual smirk. He was pissed off and annoyed that he was getting his butt kicked. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

I just saw back and forth bickering that didnt prove anything.

---

You've described almost every debate EVER.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!

---

eh, its fine... you can mess with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I didnt see the debate myself, but its obvious that neither of them really won. There wasnt a knockout blow of sorts and with an election like this, where most voters made up their mind 5 months ago, thats what you need to claim victory.

---

Simple logic, watch the debate, then have an opinion about it.

I agree the debate isn't that hugly important, but Bush really did look awful.

=/ No one won. After the election we are still going to have one of those two dipshits for president.

Kerry was born and bred to be captain of the debate team.

Of course, one doesn't look to the captain of the debate team to lead the football team to victory...

;)

But you don't let the Monkey mascot lead the football team either.

We are so fucked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

=/ No one won. After the election we are still going to have one of those two dipshits for president.

---

Well, now at least we know who won the thread. :bang:

I hope Bush puts up more of a fight next time. There was no joy in watching him get thoroughly trounced. It was actually kind of painful to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

But you don't let the Monkey mascot lead the football team either.

We are so fucked.

---

uhuh http://zhongwen.com/bush/w-cheer.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

=/ No one won. After the election we are still going to have one of those two dipshits for president.

---

This is true, but hopefully, the American people will be smart enough to put the lesser of the 2 dipshits in office. I mean, Kerry isn't the greatest guy for president, but we need Bush out of office. But after watching the debate, Kerry gained a few more points in my book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkCrow676

This is true, but hopefully, the American people will be smart enough to put the lesser of the 2 dipshits in office. I mean, Kerry isn't the greatest guy for president, but we need Bush out of office. But after watching the debate, Kerry gained a few more points in my book.

---

I just don't like Kerry. I don't like his tone. I don't like how he carries himself. I don't like his attitude. I don't like his vice president. I don't like how little he has said about what he plans to do when elected.

Great, it is really awesome he isn't Bush. NOW, could he please tell me exactly HOW he plans on doing things different, and not just telling me he is going to do things different?

I swear this election is like picking between an idiot and an asshole who may only be slightly more smart than the idiot. Sure he is fucking awesome at talking, but what exactly has he said? Really?

I'm really thinking of writing in Mickey mouse or Kim Possible or something. I want my disgust for this election and its candidates on record.. The two party system has really let us down if these two worthless pieces-of-shit are the BEST each party could find.

You don't think there are real, substantive differences between the candidates?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

I just don't like Kerry. I don't like his tone. I don't like how he carries himself. I don't like his attitude. I don't like his vice president. I don't like how little he has said about what he plans to do when elected.

Great, it is really awesome he isn't Bush. NOW, could he please tell me exactly HOW he plans on doing things different, and not just telling me he is going to do things different?

I swear this election is like picking between an idiot and an asshole who may only be slightly more smart than the idiot. Sure he is fucking awesome at talking, but what exactly has he said? Really?

I'm really thinking of writing in Mickey mouse or Kim Possible or something. I want my disgust for this election and its candidates on record.. The two party system has really let us down if these two worthless pieces-of-shit are the BEST each party could find.

---

Not to stop your ranting, but you do realize that you can go to either Bush's or Kerry's websites for detailed explanations of their agendas and plans for their respective presidencies, right?

I mean, I understand the want for clear, and detailed plans, but with the two-minute response time for the debates, there's just no way possible to give much besides sweeping, vague generalities.

In this day and age, there's no reason to be uninformed, especially since information is global (ie. Internet). So by all means go there, read up, and if you still aren't satisfied with his initiatives and agendas feel free to bitch and moan all you like.

BTW, back on-topic. In all honesty (without the usual spin thrown from both sides), Bush got STOMPED by Kerry, both in substance and style. This in the field Bush was suppossed to win easily. Let's see how he handles the Domestic debates, a topic which Kerry leads by double-digits in the polls.

And I have to say, what the hell more do these "undecided voters" need before they wake up?!? There are plenty of differences between the two of them if they only open your eyes and watch tv/read the newspaper/go online. When I watched The Daily Show segment with the reporter interviewing undecided voters I nearly fell out of my seat with laughter with how poignant it was. How can you not decide between two men who barely ever agree with each other on any issue? Two men who have vastly different economic, enviornmental, medical, and foreign affairs plans?

If you only hear about the bickering between the two of them, why don't you read and find out what they're bickering about instead?

I'm not the most political saavy person around, but I do my fair share of reading and watching news channels and such. The only thing you need to do is decide what it is you want policy wise in this country, look at each candidate and see whose politics match up with yours the most, and stick to it. Like it was said in an earlier thread, we create these politicians; they are the best we have for now. So instead of complaining about how they both suck and such, learn to deal with the cards you are dealt with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SonofdonCD

And I have to say, what the hell more do these "undecided voters" need before they wake up?!? There are plenty of differences between the two of them if they only open your eyes and watch tv/read the newspaper/go online. When I watched The Daily Show segment with the reporter interviewing undecided voters I nearly fell out of my seat with laughter with how poignant it was. How can you not decide between two men who barely ever agree with each other on any issue? Two men who have vastly different economic, enviornmental, medical, and foreign affairs plans?

---

Maybe they are repubs who don't want to vote for an idiot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SonofdonCD

I'm not the most political saavy person around, but I do my fair share of reading and watching news channels and such. The only thing you need to do is decide what it is you want policy wise in this country, look at each candidate and see whose politics match up with yours the most, and stick to it. Like it was said in an earlier thread, we create these politicians; they are the best we have for now. So instead of complaining about how they both suck and such, learn to deal with the cards you are dealt with.

---

What are you, fucking 12? What a naive spill of shit you just posted. You can't just go by what they say they are going to do. Both parties are well known for going back on the issues they run on. Bush for example said he was against using the military for the VERY THING he is using them for right now.

To ignore the character, past, and behavior of those running and those under them, and then pin your hopes on what they claim they will do is just idiotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

Maybe they are repubs who don't want to vote for an idiot?

---

What are you talking about?!?

Quote:

---

What are you, fucking 12? What a naive spill of shit you just posted. You can't just go by what they say they are going to do. Both parties are well known for going back on the issues they run on. Bush for example said he was against using the military for the VERY THING he is using them for right now.

To ignore the character, past, and behavior of those running and those under them, and then pin your hopes on what they claim they will do is just idiotic.

---

Yeah, sure. Chatacter is important. Never said it wasn't.

But you can't go solely on character either. Ultimately you have to look at their initiatives and decide from that. Why would you vote for Bush when you don't agree with the vast majority of his politics, and you agree mostly with Kerry's? Cause once you strip down their characters, what else do you got besides their initiatives?

You act as if what they have planned makes no difference whatsoever, when it's in fact what you should base your vote on the most.

But besides all that, that wasn't even directly addressing you. I was talking/ranting about undecided voters in general. It's not like both candidates have similar campaigns; they are totally different, and would bring this country in two different directions if they got what they wanted (Congress notwithstanding). I don't see how this late in the game you can not be decided.

So calm the hell down, and let's keep this civil, m'kay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SonofdonCD

What are you talking about?!?

---

Say someone doesn't like what Kerry stands for. Maybe for good reasons, or just because of the party he is running for. BUT they also have lost all respect for Bush and have no faith he will live up to what he says he will do.

I could see where someone like that would be undecided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Kerry was born and bred to be captain of the debate team.

Of course, one doesn't look to the captain of the debate team to lead the football team to victory...

;)

---

I wasn't aware america was a football team.

Also I wasn't aware Bush was tougher than Kerry, but I guess I should have known, considering Bush fought in all those wars and stuff...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

I just don't like Kerry. I don't like his tone. I don't like how he carries himself. I don't like his attitude. I don't like his vice president. I don't like how little he has said about what he plans to do when elected.

Great, it is really awesome he isn't Bush. NOW, could he please tell me exactly HOW he plans on doing things different, and not just telling me he is going to do things different?

I swear this election is like picking between an idiot and an asshole who may only be slightly more smart than the idiot. Sure he is fucking awesome at talking, but what exactly has he said? Really?

I'm really thinking of writing in Mickey mouse or Kim Possible or something. I want my disgust for this election and its candidates on record.. The two party system has really let us down if these two worthless pieces-of-shit are the BEST each party could find.

---

I can agree with all of it, but I'd rather have an arrogant intelligent man be president, capable of thinking shit through, than an arrogant moron of a man who has to be led by the hand and could never admit a mistake of his own.. Honestly, doesn't partisanship have a line or something? Don't you eventually stop supporting someone like Bush just because your a republican or your on the change everything that isn't us bandwagon, after he fucks up past a certain point?

I have never seen a president with more free passes in my life.

Just found this funny. Sorry if it's already been posted.

http://home.earthlink.net/~houval/gopconstrm.mov

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Also I wasn't aware Bush was tougher than Kerry, but I guess I should have known, considering Bush fought in all those wars and stuff..

---

Pay no attention to Meach, he's gone from a resonable human being to one of those Michael Savage-esque loonies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

I wasn't aware america was a football team.

Also I wasn't aware Bush was tougher than Kerry, but I guess I should have known, considering Bush fought in all those wars and stuff...




I can agree with all of it, but I'd rather have an arrogant intelligent man be president, capable of thinking shit through, than an arrogant moron of a man who has to be led by the hand and could never admit a mistake of his own.. Honestly, doesn't partisanship have a line or something? Don't you eventually stop supporting someone like Bush just because your a republican or your on the change everything that isn't us bandwagon, after he fucks up past a certain point?

I have never seen a president with more free passes in my life.

---

Well I know I don't want Bush. But I have looked at Kerry's site and I'm not really impressed. For the most part all it says is he will spend more on the things people care about, lower taxes for the majority, and some how cut the def. in half. I saw very little on his site going into any detail on how he wants to acheive his goals. Just the same "I think evey american should have <insert thing here> the Kerry adminstration will make this a reality for all <insert group of people here>."

Anyone got any better sties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

I wasn't aware america was a football team.

Also I wasn't aware Bush was tougher than Kerry, but I guess I should have known, considering Bush fought in all those wars and stuff...

---

To put it succinctly, we've no doubts where Bush stands on the issue of Islamo-fascism and how he will deal with it. He takes it seriously enough to take risks to stamp it out (as much as that is possible).

Kerry says he will defend America. Is it unfair to ask how he will prosecute this battle w/fascism when he apparently doesn't see it for the clash of civilizations that it is? What I mean to say is, the Islamists see this as a battle to the death. Shouldn't we want someone to lead that sort of battle who accords it the seriousness it deserves?

I consistently get the impression Kerry believes a little chit-chat w/our allies will extricate us from Iraq (n/m that France/Germany are ON RECORD saying they will in no way send troops) and, further, that we've 'got to go about this in the right way' (referring to the battle w/terror on the macro level). What does that mean? Am I wrong to question whether he can lead when he doesn't seem to grasp what's at stake? (Also, he has yet to say what, precisely he thinks is necessary, on the macro level, for the 'War on Terror' - other than restricting bank accts and other, easily, currently employed methods).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

To put it succinctly, we've no doubts where Bush stands on the issue of Islamo-fascism and how he will deal with it. He takes it seriously enough to take risks to stamp it out (as much as that is possible).

---

That's a trademark Savage term, and one I might add he likes to apply to any Muslim that does anything against the status quo, no matter how innane the situation. For instance, he applied it to a Muslim woman who refused to remove her burka for a Driver's License photo. Now, I understand how the woman may be being inflexible by not agreeing to atleast remove it so the photo can have an accurate picture of her face for identification, but calling her a facist for it? Complete lunacy. Anyone who listens to Michael Savage and takes him seriously needs to get their head examined, especially Savage himself (who I'm sure likes nothing more than to hear the sound of his own voice).

As far as Meach's quote itself, he likes to point out all of Kerry's inconsistencies while not addressing Bush's obvious failures. Bush taking risks? Not with American lives he shouldn't. This isn't supposed to be Foreign Affairs 101 where over a thousand American casualities serve as an education for someone with no worldly knowledge. The whole concept of 'Islamo-Facism' is ignorant and backward and is somehow trying to equate all of the Muslim world to Nazi Germany. These parallels exist only in the minds of the far-right, not in reality.

Also, as Kerry pointed out in the debate, one of those crucial issues of the 'War on Terror' the search and containment of nuclear materials has been essentially ignored by the current administration. An oversite like this alone is worthy of impeachment. How can one act so concerned about the threat of 'WMDs' to the U.S. when your only action taken against it is invading a county that DOESN'T HAVE ANY!? Meanwhile, allowing other countries that we KNOW to have them to bulwark their arsenals and become heightened in their state of alert. It's bungling like this that make even Kerry's lofty promises a welcome alternative to the Bush administration's complete stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

To put it succinctly, we've no doubts where Bush stands on the issue of Islamo-fascism and how he will deal with it. He takes it seriously enough to take risks to stamp it out (as much as that is possible).

Kerry says he will defend America. Is it unfair to ask how he will prosecute this battle w/fascism when he apparently doesn't see it for the clash of civilizations that it is? What I mean to say is, the Islamists see this as a battle to the death. Shouldn't we want someone to lead that sort of battle who accords it the seriousness it deserves?

I consistently get the impression Kerry believes a little chit-chat w/our allies will extricate us from Iraq (n/m that France/Germany are ON RECORD saying they will in no way send troops) and, further, that we've 'got to go about this in the right way' (referring to the battle w/terror on the macro level). What does that mean? Am I wrong to question whether he can lead when he doesn't seem to grasp what's at stake? (Also, he has yet to say what, precisely he thinks is necessary, on the macro level, for the 'War on Terror' - other than restricting bank accts and other, easily, currently employed methods).

---

I'll be as obtuse as possible, so you actually have to think about the bullshit you just spouted from your arse.

The "War on Terror" is like having lung surgery while smoking cigarettes with asbestos filters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

That's a trademark Savage term, and one I might add he likes to apply to any Muslim that does anything against the status quo, no matter how innane the situation. For instance, he applied it to a Muslim woman who refused to remove her burka for a Driver's License photo. Now, I understand how the woman may be being inflexible by not agreeing to atleast remove it so the photo can have an accurate picture of her face for identification, but calling her a facist for it? Complete lunacy. Anyone who listens to Michael Savage and takes him seriously needs to get their head examined, especially Savage himself (who I'm sure likes nothing more than to hear the sound of his own voice).

---

Feel free to rant against Savage all you want. He's a demagogue that no one should take seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

As far as Meach's quote itself, he likes to point out all of Kerry's inconsistencies while not addressing Bush's obvious failures. Bush taking risks? Not with American lives he shouldn't. This isn't supposed to be Foreign Affairs 101 where over a thousand American casualities serve as an education for someone with no worldly knowledge.

---

I have many problems w/this administration, some of which have to do w/the way Bush has conducted this battle w/Islamo-fascism. I don't need to list them here but I will (mostly so you can be done w/these pathetic assertions that I am, w/o thought, drinking Administration Kool-Aid). Predominantly, my problem stems from the Bush 'swagger' that, real or not, has come to characterize his foreign policy. 'Speaking softly' could go a long way. He's wrong on stem cells, he's wrong on restricting trade, he's wrong on overall 'tone'.

That said, I ought to be able to espouse my beliefs w/o the predictable OMG<insertcandidate>LOVER!!!! garbage that masquerades as an 'argument' on internet msg boards.

Bush shouldn't be taking risks w/American lives? Whose lives should he risk when fighting terror? (ADDED) for clarity: I know you're referring to the Iraq war. But you've basically just argued that Bush (or any prez) cannot put lives at risk for...anything. That can't be what you're arguing, can it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

The whole concept of 'Islamo-Facism' is ignorant and backward and is somehow trying to equate all of the Muslim world to Nazi Germany. These parallels exist only in the minds of the far-right, not in reality.

---

The phrase was turned by Christopher Hitchens, hardly a mind of the far-right. He used it to describe those radical Muslims (who have hijacked their faith) who want to violently silence moderates, impose sharia, oppress women, demonize modernity and forestall democracy in Muslim cultures.

]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

I'll be as obtuse as possible, so you actually have to think about the bullshit you just spouted from your arse.

The "War on Terror" is like having lung surgery while smoking cigarettes with asbestos filters.

---

I'm glad we had this civil discussion of serious issues.

So no one has any sites that give detailed descriptions of how Kerry plans to achieve the things he is claiming he will do for the American people?

I'm not going to vote for Kerry just because he isn't Bush. I want long descriptive paragraphs going into detail on what he wants to do when elected and I want counter points to what he wants to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

So no one has any sites that give detailed descriptions of how Kerry plans to achieve the things he is claiming he will do for the American people?

I'm not going to vote for Kerry just because he isn't Bush. I want long descriptive paragraphs going into detail on what he wants to do when elected and I want counter points to what he wants to do.

---

Douche. JohnKerry.com. Big PDF downloads.

Come back and call 'em bullshit, say you don't like 'em, whatever you like, just quit saying they're not there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

I'm not going to vote for Kerry just because he isn't Bush.

---

Well, I think a lot of people me included will do just this. Like I've said before Kerry's going to be the lesser of two evils. As much as I want to hear some more fleshed out plans of what Kerry is going to do if he is elected, whatever it is, cant be worse than what Bush would do if re-elected.

As complex and hard as you want to make it - Bush is an idiot and Kerry isnt. I'm not really keen on re-electing a bumbling idiot, and expect him to make sound choices concerning the future of our nation. Are you?

Kerry is for change. That is enough reason for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

cant be worse than what Bush would do if re-elected.

---

There is always the possibility for worse. History has proven this over and over again. There is no telling how many people have died because of decisions made out of desperation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

As complex and hard as you want to make it - Bush is an idiot and Kerry isnt. I'm not really keen on re-electing a bumbling idiot, and expect him to make sound choices concerning the future of our nation. Are you?

---

Do you enjoy fables?

The Doe and the Lion


A DOE hard pressed by hunters sought refuge in a cave belonging
to a Lion. The Lion concealed himself on seeing her approach,
but when she was safe within the cave, sprang upon her and tore
her to pieces. "Woe is me," exclaimed the Doe, "who have escaped
from man, only to throw myself into the mouth of a wild beast?'


In avoiding one evil, care must be taken not to fall into
another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

I know you're referring to the Iraq war. But you've basically just argued that Bush (or any prez) cannot put lives at risk for...anything. That can't be what you're arguing, can it?

---

Absolutely. I ask you, where in the Constitution of the United States does it give the President the power to do so? Nowhere. The U.S. never declared war on Iraq, and without any credible ties to WMDs or terrorism established there it does not fall under the dangerously broad term 'War on Terror' thus it is an illegal war conducted without the approval of the Congress.

It's a propaganda illusion that the citizenry must somehow be beholden to the President. Yes, he is Commander-in-Chief of the Army & Navy (as stated in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution) but that has absolutely no barring on the civilian population. He, under the Constitution, has no power to declare war of any kind without the Congress. In fact, until Teddy Roosevelt's administration the position of President was a largely ceremonial one. I'd like it to go back to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

I'm glad we had this civil discussion of serious issues.

---

OK, being obtuse obviously doesn't work.

Islamic Terrorism exists NOT because they're jealous of Western prosperity, and not because they want to burn the infidels who deny the sanctity of Wahad Allah. It exists because the West has consistently supported coups that crushed nationalist uprisings which threatened the control of resources of interest; in so completely destabilising the area and creating a power vacuum to allow for the growth of radical movements.

The most obvious examples being the Suez Crisis and Operation Ajax

Prior to Operation Ajax, Iran was governed by democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh. Iran was relatively stable and was becoming fairly secular and progressive. So what was the problem? Mossadegh was talking crazy talk like: all the oil in Iran should be controlled by Iran and used to better the lives of the Iranian people, and not by companies such as the AIOC who only got drilling licenses during the pre-democratic corruption; and, Iran should adopt a socialist principles like other capitalist countries with high standards of living.

So the CIA went in, popped caps in their democratic arses, installed a shitty inbred dictatorial Shah, the country went to shit, the living standards in Iran dropped dramatically, dissent grew, and what would you know, Islamo-Facists took control of the country.

Bombing Iraq just pisses them off more and makes more terrorists. Hence my obtuse thing. You may be cutting out the lung cancer (killing terrorists) but while you still smoke (control their resources through military strength and prevent the creation of Palestine) you're just going to grow more cancer.

g0zen

Well, the Congress authorized the President to use force should he deem it necessary to do so. Now, maybe they shouldn't have given him that power but...

Anyways, Presidents have had the right to deploy troops for numerous types of missions via Executive Order. This comes from the Cold War, where, the reasoning went, the Prez can't go to Congress everytime troops are needed somewhere (where they are put at risk).

One other thing, just an historical aside. The US has sent troops into harm's way (risk) many times w/o Congressional authorization. Now, many of these haven't been full-on wars like WWII or anything but it has been going on for awhile (see: Grenada/Beirut/Somalia/Haiti/Kosovo etc). Anyways, not trying to argue here, just saying...

Oh yeah. We agree it'd be nice if the Executive were less powerful but unfortunately it just isn't going to happen in a technological, post-modern society.

:\

Astro

See, that wasn't so hard. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MysteriousRacerC

Douche. JohnKerry.com. Big PDF downloads.

Come back and call 'em bullshit, say you don't like 'em, whatever you like, just quit saying they're not there.

---

=/ could you link me. I'm not finding it.

Oh, and do so with out being an ass about it?

Thanks, kisses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

g0zen

Well, the Congress authorized the President to use force should he deem it necessary to do so. Now, maybe they shouldn't have given him that power but...

Anyways, Presidents have had the right to deploy troops for numerous types of missions via Executive Order. This comes from the Cold War, where, the reasoning went, the Prez can't go to Congress everytime troops are needed somewhere (where they are put at risk).

One other thing, just an historical aside. The US has sent troops into harm's way (risk) many times w/o Congressional authorization. Now, many of these haven't been full-on wars like WWII or anything but it has been going on for awhile (see: Grenada/Beirut/Somalia/Haiti/Kosovo etc). Anyways, not trying to argue here, just saying...

Oh yeah. We agree it'd be nice if the Executive were less powerful but unfortunately it just isn't going to happen in a technological, post-modern society.

---

I'm not debating the fact the President has this power and uses (more like abuses it). You asked me if I thought the President had the right to risk American lives for anything, I said that (according ot the Constitution) he does not. Have the Constitutionality of these 'Executive Orders' ever been challenged in the Supreme Court? I doubt it.