|
Buff, you can be so "junior high" at times. Part of my personal preference for Kerry is a deep distrust (bordering on hatred) for Bush and everything he stands for. It might be hard for you to understand, but Kerry is saying exactly the things that can get the rest of the world to get back in the game. It might be beyond your understanding how important this is, I know that the old "shoot 'em all and let allah sort them out" mentality runs deep. But in the end, you get much more done when the gang is with you than you do by yourself.
As for the debate itself, I think that I would score it about 70 - 30... Bush looked confused, spent way too long on the defence, and kept answering the same things over and over again. Those things might play well on the evening news, but sound bites don't make a debate. I suspect his team is going to give him a HUGE makeover before the next event. I also think Bush was very transparent in his attempts not to answer direct questions. Again, that sort of redirection might play well in sound bites, but put into context, it really looks evasive. Kerry needs to learn some shorter words. He tended to get a little wordy. Alex |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ladies and Gentlemen, George Wallace. Ho do you gt DSL in your cabin in the woods? Those are two issues that are at the stage they are at for a reason. church doesnot belong in school for a REASON. Integration happened for a REASON. ts called progress. Neocon republicans share the same boat with Osama Bin Ladin when it comes to Progress. They avoid it like leprosy. [/b][/quote] Grimm, no offense, but reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point. I am about as far removed from supporting segregation, religion in schools, or anything related to the neocon agenda as you can get. The point I was trying to make is that I heard many of the same arguments the Ostrich Society (too smart/hip/cool/intelligent/detached to vote, so I'll stick my head in the sand) and the Gloom'nDoomers (both parties are corrupt, no point in voting for either, America is going to hell in a handbasket) make for as long as I've been alive - and any halfassed study of American history will tell you that both schools of "thought" [sic] have been around for a long, long time. |
I think the most important thing here is ...
... that Grimm's avatar looks like Christopher Walken to me. |
Buff, I would expect the leader of the free world to be able to answer simple questions. I would expect him to at least make a passing attempt to answer questions as asked.
I saw little of that in Bush. Instead I heard "flip flop" and "change position" over and over. Few ideas, attempts at zingers, and a bunch of "umm" and "ahh"... Kerry stayed pretty darn composed, and I think won the night handily. Alex |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Kerry demonstrated a notion of foreign policy so naive and unrealistic that he deserves to be mocked for it. I can understand if you consider one of these dipshits to be less worse than the other and therefore want to choose the lesser of two evils as apparently PD the junior high fellator does, but the idea that you would actively support one of these assclowns is nauseating. |
*shudder*
My opinion and Buff's opinion have some how looped so far in the opposite direction they have merged :unsure: If I had the option not to vote, I wouldn't, because the 'voting for lesser of 2 evils' has made a joke of democracy. The elections are won through corporations & which puppet can get the most funding from the control freaks in Texas. Here's were Buff & I differ *Phew* ... whereas he wants to pick up some guns and go blow up random people until he hits the right one, I would rather smell the flowers than blow them up. All I can say is thank god I was born into a country that at least pretends to have a democracy (australia & america are both the same in this respect) & that has food and water ... instead of the Middle East, Africa, China, or any of the other places humans are lucky to live to the age I am now or experience basic human rights. The best thing we can all do with our lives is to get on with living it, enjoy the time we have as much as we can and leave the shit to the assholes. Anything else is disrespectful to those who aren't so fortunate. |
Quote:
oxymoron |
Quote:
I am about as far removed from supporting segregation, religion in schools, or anything related to the neocon agenda as you can get. The point I was trying to make is that I heard many of the same arguments the Ostrich Society (too smart/hip/cool/intelligent/detached to vote, so I'll stick my head in the sand) and the Gloom'nDoomers (both parties are corrupt, no point in voting for either, America is going to hell in a handbasket) make for as long as I've been alive - and any halfassed study of American history will tell you that both schools of "thought" [sic] have been around for a long, long time. [/b][/quote] none taken, i just missed your point. my reading comprehension is just fine, i just hear the same ole crap so much, i tend to skim. So what is the solution per se? we get two choices to compromise our country. IT is well established that voting for outside parties is a "wasted vote" so why waste your time voting unless you are taking one of the big two. Special interest wins again. The Fear Zealots and Rich get their choice Kerry is the unknown, and we cant have that. So where do we go. Clinton was the unknown, and we got 8 good years in terms of what REALLY matters. I am much more worried about kids on drugs and somebody breaking into my house than i am about terrorism. Terrorism is a tool, a crock of shit, the rhetoric has been run into the ground so much that the warning levels carry no weight. granted, measures have worked, but AWARENESS is the greatest weapon, and i dont think it matters who sits in the oval office for that. American security is not a lynchpin issue. The pieces are in place. nothing wil chnge even if charlie brown ends up taking florida. I Hate, despise, cannot stand george bush for his Old boys club, buddy buddy, ignorance of the middle class. I dont know as much about Kerry, but hell i do know what bush did for four years...who would you vote for, 4 years of bad administration, or 4 years upcoming of questionable administration. and the bigger question, why should we have to. we made a mistake (or there was some misdoing) 4 years ago, and we are paying the piper in the form of a shitty Nov 2 to look forward to. my .02 |
Quote:
http://www.aspyre.net/narra/archives/006764.html they have the script and a link to the download. More Cowbell Baby! |
I think overall Bush won, since 95% of the questions were on issues where Kerry is weak. Kerry didnīt come out as a more strong candidate on most of the Iraq questions, however he did have his moments - ex. on securing all nuclear materials in Russia, there he was precise, firm and to the point - if Kerry would stop the Iraq blame argument, and do more precise/constructive/short arguments, then he could win alot of the undecided voters.
It was too easy for Bush, since Kerry didnīt have the arguments to make him sweat on the Iraq issues. I think the next one will be more interesting, since each camp will be analyzing this debate, and learning from it. Scale from 1-10, where 10 is greatest: Bush 5 Kerry 3 :biglaugh: |
Here's what the aol folk have to say. (I'm sure there's pleanty of underagers, non registered voters....but it is a poll afterall).
Who won the debate? John Kerry 54% George Bush 46% Did it change the candidate you support? No 72% Yes, I now support Kerry 18% Yes, I now support Bush 10% Total Votes: 505,124 |
"great googly moogly"
hahahaha. |
i just caught a rerun of the debate.
and i say hands down, Kerry won. Bushcould not answer for his own actions. |
Quote:
|
I think each candidate had several goals... Bush accomplished most of his goals (including not making a complete ass of himself ;-))), however Kerry missed several of his (ex. making his international politic clear).
What are your definition of winning a debate? |
You win a debate when the other side cannot clearly answer and support their side. On that basis, Kerry won in a landslide.
As I mentioned at the top of this thread, Bush ain't very good at these things, and it showed. As soon as the discussion went away from his pre-recorded messages, he stumbled, he paused, he stuttered, and he talked in circles. His "wrong war wrong place wrong time" message only goes to re-enforce the feels of many people, that it was the wrong war! Kerry having the balls to admit it will more than likely help to get the world to come back on to the US's side. The lone cowboy routine gets really dull after a while, and you know everyone tries to get the gunslinger. Kerry SOUNDLY beat Bush (CNN poll gave Bush a "C" rating overall, Kerry a "B+" - based on public votes). He has vaulted himself right back into the campaign. Now it will be interesting to see what he does with it. It will also be interesting to see if Bush still wants to do the other debates. Alex |
Quote:
Winning a debate is when the voters chose you over your opponent. Nobody won shit in that debate, Republicans are not switching sides, Democrats are not switching sides and so far it's a draw, despite what Canadien voters think ;-)))) |
Serge, if it was that simple, then there would be no election, just a membership drive. You forget that many (probably close to a majority) are not members of either party.
So there ya go. Alex |
Quote:
|
I think this morning's Gallup results rather clearly show how people viewed the debates.
Kery won the debate, Kerry is much more articulate, they understand the issues the same, Bush is more believable, Bush is more likable and Bush demonstrated he is tougher for the job. Kerry kicked Bush's ass in the debate. This seems to be largely based upon how articulate Kerry is as people were evenly divided over their opinion of their understanding of the issues. Bush won on the points that are giving him an advantage going into the election. He's believable, he's likable, he's tough enough for the job. I guess being from Texas beats being a war hero. That's good marketing. |
Quote:
To say he SOUNDLY beat Bush is to demonstrate silly partisanship. I think he beat Bush, but I don't think it was masterful. Like I said, he missed some real opportunities to bury Bush. He could have worked that mumble-mouthed idiot like a 12 year old school girl in Beijing. Did you ever see the 2000 Republican Debates -- McCain, Bush, and Keyes? Alan Keyes made Bush look like a retarded monkey. It was so bad people were groaning. We were laughing at Bush. He got tooled. Kerry had the chance to do the same thing. He could have bodyslammed Bush. He didn't. Like I said, if you want to see what a rhetorical beating is, go look at what Keyes did to Bush. No comparison. Alex, my guess is that if a video surfaced of Kerry fucking a 6 year old boy in the ass while snorting coke off his back and then shooting him in the head when he was done, you'd try to justify it. |
Anyone who wants to see and read about Bush really getting his ass handed to him in debates should check this link out:
http://www.renewamerica.us/keyes/debates.htm Here's an idea of what Keyes did to Bush (keep in mind that Bush had a huge Republican following who was going to vote for him no matter how badly he lost, kind of like Alex would do for Kerry no matter how poorly he performs): 2000 Republican presidential debate polls (Polls conducted by Vote.com) Who won the March 2, 2000, Republican debate? George W. Bush (6,430 votes) 53% Alan Keyes (4,210 votes) 34% John McCain (1,586 votes) 13% Who won the February 15, 2000, Republican debate? Alan Keyes (10,542 votes) 44% George W. Bush (9,374 votes) 39% John McCain (4,157 votes) 17% Who won the January 26, 2000, Republican debate? Alan Keyes (5,715 votes) 47% George W. Bush (3,711 votes) 30% Steve Forbes (1,505 votes) 12% John McCain (1,152 votes) 9% Gary Bauer (157 votes) 1% Who won the January 15, 2000, Republican debate? Alan Keyes (3,929 votes) 54% George W. Bush (2,279 votes) 31% John McCain (673 votes) 9% Steve Forbes (222 votes) 3% Gary Bauer (92 votes) 1% Orrin Hatch (90 votes) 1% Who won the January 10, 2000, Republican debate? Alan Keyes (6,462 votes) 50% George W. Bush (4,393 votes) 34% John McCain (1,320 votes) 10% Steve Forbes (322 votes) 3% Gary Bauer (187 votes) 1% Orrin Hatch (187 votes) 1% Who won the January 7, 2000, Republican debate? Alan Keyes (3,480 votes) 44% George W. Bush (3,327 votes) 42% John McCain (753 votes) 9% Steve Forbes (214 votes) 3% Gary Bauer (111 votes) 1% Orrin Hatch (110 votes) 1% Who won the January 6, 2000, Republican debate? Alan Keyes (5,599 votes) 46% George W. Bush (4,528 votes) 37% John McCain (1,276 votes) 10% Steve Forbes (335 votes) 3% Orrin Hatch (249 votes) 2% Gary Bauer (181 votes) 1% Who won the December 13, 1999, Republican debate? Alan Keyes (11,551 votes) 42% George W. Bush (10,713 votes) 39% John McCain (3,460 votes) 13% Steve Forbes (954 votes) 3% Orrin Hatch (619 votes) 2% Gary Bauer (380 votes) 1% Who won the December 6, 1999, Republican debate? Alan Keyes (14,201 votes) 57% George W. Bush (5,296 votes) 21% John McCain (3,282 votes) 13% Steve Forbes (1,335 votes) 5% Gary Bauer (387 votes) 2% Orrin Hatch (383 votes) 2% Who won the December 2, 1999, Republican debate? Alan Keyes (19,158 votes) 45% George W. Bush (12,136 votes) 29% John McCain (7,412 votes) 17% Steve Forbes (2,735 votes) 6% Gary Bauer (608 votes) 1% Orrin Hatch (477 votes) 1% Trancripts of the debates: http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/debates.htm |
Of all the political threads/debates I have seen here on Oprano, I can say that I have never seen anyone as angry as Buff with his own country's government.
Buff, you would be a very happy Canadian. |
Quote:
I mean, Bush cannot even speak. It's just sad. Kerry can be on 5 sides of a 2 sided issue and Bush doesn't have the competency to pummel him successful for it. And Kerry was debating a guy whom most people here, judging by their posts, think is an idiot. If that's the best he can do against an idiot, how great can he be? Doesn't this make sense? |
Quote:
I mean, Bush cannot even speak. It's just sad. Kerry can be on 5 sides of a 2 sided issue and Bush doesn't have the competency to pummel him successful for it. And Kerry was debating a guy whom most people here, judging by their posts, think is an idiot. If that's the best he can do against an idiot, how great can he be? Doesn't this make sense? [/b][/quote] Well as you know, I am not even a US citizen. I'm Canadian. So my views are somewhat of an outsider looking in. Could it be that John Kerry simply hasn't lowered himself to Bush's level? I haven't seen him slinging anywhere near the amount of mud that Bush throws at the Dems and Kerry. I'll be straight up with you. I don't know a lot about Kerry's political track record or background. I'm not sure why you think he's such an idiot, but it's probably because I don't know enough about the man. Fact remains that the rest of the world is distancing themselves from the US. The UK is a somewhat reluctant friend. Kerry's plan involves getting back to better relations with the UN and the rest of the free world. I think that's a very positive move. |
Buff, makes perfect sense.... so why do you want to re-elect the idiot?
Oh yeah, I checked the polls this morning. Every one I saw had Kerry spanking Bush... Alex |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Buff, Then you are kinda SOL ain't cha? |
Quote:
Then you are kinda SOL ain't cha? [/b][/quote] Yes. |
Quote:
"libertarian" is a cop out libertarian is just someone who demonstrates free will, its political attachment is one who beleives in individual rights, not garnered by the state or country. we are all libertarians, but a libertarian cannot exist in a representative democracy. You canot cast your ballot for anyone but yourself and call yourself a libertarian. hence, the copout. you have defined yourself in an impossible corner of a system of government. you have created an ad infinitum argument with no political solution other than revolution. The only acceptable goal of such revolution is Anarchy. The most likely goal of such revolution is the splintering of a nation, i.e. the U.S.S.R. Paint a pretty picture? |
Quote:
is Canadien politics bores you to death? I NEVER seen you discuss Canadien politics with fellow Canadiens.... Do you care about Canadien politics? What are your thoughts on Separatise Movement in Quebec? If your knowlege of USA politics is better than local, you can skip the subject. |
Serge, you are 28 years late on asking the seperation question. The masses have been polled and twice have said no.
Canadian politics is fairly simple and straight forward. But we aren't "the superpower", we aren't the world's self appointed police man, and whoever is in the whitehouse is going to make decisions that will directly affect me. So US politics is much more interesting. Buff, ou get choice A, choice B, or STFU (or Nader in some places, which is the same thing). You have to choose. If you choose NEITHER NOR, then you have just increased the power of someone else's vote. Alex |
Quote:
Quote:
I think its about time Canadian imperialism gets a closer look - or should we wait for the Canadian Army to attack NATO allies? :zoinks: ;-) |
Quote:
Winning a debate is when the voters chose you over your opponent. Nobody won shit in that debate, Republicans are not switching sides, Democrats are not switching sides and so far it's a draw, despite what Canadien voters think ;-)))) [/b][/quote] this from s hadliner;) |
Rolo, nice piece, except for the credit:
"Macdonald Stainsby is a 29-year-old student, freelance writer, and social justice activist living in Montreal, Quebec, and studying at Concordia University. " 29 year old student activist? Is that the best you could come up with? I have seen what student activists do... they go to summits and start riots. Alex |
Quote:
But truth is that canadians are now using possible "terror" as the excuse for making moves in the Arctic - yes, we should all fear the "Arctic terrorism" (sounds familiar??) Quote:
Canada is on a confrontation path with its neighbours... trying to use force, so Canada can get its hands on the "oil" and trade in the Arctic.... yup, its all about money - I wonder how many canadian politicians have money invested in this. Atleast they are not trying to make it look like they are freeing the eskimos from the evil danish vikings... well, atleast not yet! Canadian imperialists :stout: |
The difference between Canada and the US:
"Using the military to respond to traditional security threats is still an option, Huebert said. But he suggested diplomacy will likely be the response to what he called several "dangerous" threats to Canadian security and sovereignty." Yup... diplomacy. Not MOABs. Anyway, nice distraction techniques by the republican side... so Kerry won the dabate hands down. What is it like to support a confused and befuddled President? Alex |
Quote:
Today the warmongers in Ottawa are building up the military in the Arctic because of "Arctic terrorism" - do they really think that more military will solve the situation? No, the Arctic will just be an area where the opponents of a Canadian presence can recruit supporters. The top performing stocks in Canada are in the mining and oil industries - industries who will make alot of money, if Canada is to control the Arctic... These are valid questions and should concern every Canadian who can vote! |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:23 AM.. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Evil Empire Inc. 2006-2022