Ghost2520 Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 I missed the first 45 minutes of it, so I'll watch the rerun thats coming on in an hour. Not being eligible to vote, I'm not rooting for either of them but I didn't like how bushes speech was so slow. He paused in between words far to often. Kerry though spent more time trying to bash Bush than actually say what he plans to do. As with any incumbant he had the advantage because in everyone of Kerry's remarks bush was able to say what he "has" done where as Kerry can just say what he "will" do. One of the more important issues of this election is what is going to happen in Iraq, in agreement with Bush, I don't see how Kerry can lead the country if he has so many different opinions about Iraq. One moment he will be bashing how the whole war was a mistake, the next he will be talking about how he would have done certain things the same way... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
snipermav Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 Yes it was a good debate. Although Bush acted very unsure of himself, he really got his point across when he questioned Kerry about the $82 billion bill. It was funny though when they got to the Nuclear Proliferation part, and Bush hesitated for quite sometime, maybe because he was afraid he was going to mispronounce? And I could've sworn that I saw Bush go over the limit at least 5 times, so where was the buzzer???? I wanted to hear it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrusk Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 I was watching the lights the whole time as well but I swear I only saw the red light blink twice. And it didnt blink long enough for the buzzer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CmpFreak88 Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 What is that light for anyway? I saw it a couple of times go on, but wasn't sure what it was. They both kept straying away from the questions and attacking the others weaknesses and playing to their advantage. Lots of repetition. Interesting overall though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodySunday Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 (edited) We must pass a global test before we use pre-emptive strike?!?!?!?! what the heck! Is it just me, or isnt pre-emptive strike meant to defend this nation? And when you will only defend this nation if and when the world approves then you dont have the balls to be president! I can see it now... "Umm... france? I have a question. Terrorists are threatening to detonate a nuke in boston. And I was wondering.. well... Would it be alright if we attacked them first?" That is a failed policy! And it will never work for the defense of this nation. God help us if Kerry is elected. Pre-emtively taking action is a risky buisness. Very rarely is pre-emptive force used as a means of a protection. Was Hilter using pre-emptive strike to protect Germany? I mean its gernerally not done his point was you have to prove to people your doing this for protection. And when your reason is found not to be true well then you have some explaining to do and other countries gripes about what you did are reasonable. When the Green light whet on it meant 30sec left when the yellow light went on 15sec left when the red light went on 5sec left and when the red light flashed it meant times up. Edited October 1, 2004 by BloodySunday Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrusk Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 Was Hilter using pre-emptive strike to protect Germany? no. But it wasnt pre-emptive strikes that brought Hitler to power. It was the appeasment and apethy of other countries that allowed him to advance his cause. Something that has nothing to do at all with the subject on hand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodySunday Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 (edited) It was the appeasment and apethy of other countries that allowed him to advance his cause. I dont think many countries in Europe were appeased with what Hilter. I think most of the countries put off war until it was inevitable. I don't think you can call it apathy or blame the Eurpean countries for it either cause if thats the case then we were also apathetic and didn't join the war not only when it was inevitable but till we were attacked. Edited October 1, 2004 by BloodySunday Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
agentorange Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 (edited) "no. But it wasnt pre-emptive strikes that brought Hitler to power. It was the appeasment and apethy of other countries that allowed him to advance his cause."- It was a pre-emptive strike that brought an end to Hitler. If he hadn't attacked Russia he would have gotten farther. In the debate Bush repeatedly (many times x 20) accused Kerry of flip-flopping on the issue of going to war in Iraq. Kerry made the point that he did think a confrontation with Iraq was necessary but had he been president he would have gone about it differently (for you who say he didn't say how he specifically stated exauhsting all diplomatic ends and making sure that we had global support, four countries is not the world). I am pretty disgusted with people in this thread talking about liberals this liberals that. Pretty shallow to just say Bush won without giving any reasons. I don't think there was winning or losing. With so many questions, each leading to more, the debate simply allowed the candidates to present their views of what should be done and how they would do it. Edited October 1, 2004 by agentorange Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrusk Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 (edited) (for you who say he didn't say how he specifically stated exauhsting all diplomatic ends and making sure that we had global support, four countries is not the world). I am pretty disgusted with people in this thread talking about liberals this liberals that. Pretty shallow to just say Bush won without giving any reasons. Maybe you werent paying attention while watching the debate, or maybe you only heard what you wanted to, but Bush said several times that he did try all diplomatic solutions. INCLUDING going to the UN and trying to get the worlds support, and the UN did authorize use of force is saddam did not allow inspections or disarm. He did neither, and instead of sitting on our . like clinton we decided to enforce that resolution. Kerry simply would have said "Bad saddam, Im slapping you with another resolution" Give me a break. 17 resolutions is 17 too many. If we didnt do anything about saddam, no one ever would. Until he attacked. Kinda like WWII. We didnt do anything until we were attacked. This is stpuid, I dont even know why I spend my time trying to enlighten you people. This is my last reply to this thread because I dont want it to get out of hand. Have fun arguing amongst yourselves. Edited October 1, 2004 by andrusk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 wow.. i am even more for kerry.. you could hear the words of desperation and the determination of bush not to say flip flop when he esentally ment that.. now see.. my economics teacher in highschool is mr. mouwer, and he is a self made millionare... he explained to us today.. why you could call john kerry a flip floper and how that is wrong.. first.. when kerry votes on a bill.. theere could be for example.. Disarmorment of nulcear missles "a bunch of stuff kerry agrees with" then.. "Send troops to mars" a bunch of stuff kerry disigrees with NOW.. this is silly right.. but i am mimicing a real bill.. im just saying that.. he can and has voted NO one some bills that have included things that he agrees with, now if he votes on another bill, and says yes, to that bill, and there was somthing on that bill, that was on the other that he disagreed with, people say, in 1998 you voted this way, now you say this and that.. and you flip-floped, when thats entirely not the case.. my economics teacher has shead some unknown light in my eyes.. i hope this helps too.. BTW.. it was a great debate tonight.. im glad i was able to stream the video from my compuer apparently you didn't hear the portion about the $82 million bill supporting the troops and how kerry actually admitted he made a mistake. you had to really be paying attention because then he quickly moved forward with his speech, trying to turn it on bush, but it didn't really work. asus, there was a thread with a video that contained all of kerry's stances on the situation in iraq, in which you could see that his flipflops were not misconceived in any way. Who cares if your economics teacher is a self-made millionaire? Maybe you're just pulling a small snippet of what he said, but if he only argued against the notion that Kerry's a flipflopper and is clearly stating his political stance in class, then he is an idiot, and doesn't deserve to be teaching our youth. Teachers shouldn't be allowed to instill their beliefs on their students. as for the light thing, bush only went over by 2 seconds tops on a few of them, so i wasn't surprised to hear no buzzer. I thought the moderation was actually pretty good. He let them get their extra 30secs a piece on several questions, and on that one where he first stated each candidates' position and kerry chimed in to elaborate, even though bush was supposed to go first, the moderator didn't let kerry go again after bush had his 30 secs, which i found fair. Anyways, the debate was decent. Both Bush and Kerry skirted many questions/debates....not of those asked by the moderator, but those that were brought up by the opposition...but overall, a pretty good indication of each candidates' stance on current foreign affairs. I don't think there was any real CLEAR winner, but I'm giving the edge to Bush for two main lies that Kerry told: 1) Kerry said that the War in Iraq cost us $200 billion. Even if you count the $25 billion appropriation that has not been spent yet, it doesn't even reach $150 billion. That's from the start of the invasion until yesterday (the night of the debate) 2) When talking about homeland security, Kerry mentioned more had to be done at home and cited as an example of how our safety at home is not up to par that during the RNC, the NYC subway was shut down. That is a 100% boldfaced lie! The only thing shutdown during the RNC were some pedestrian exits in and out of penn station (all but 2). All trains and subways ran as normal. Being a NYer myself, that really pissed me off that he said that because I'm sure in other parts of the country they may not know better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandman1485 Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 debate poll Thought that was interesting. I don't know how liberally biased CNN's base is - I was hoping to find another poll on the fox news website. Didn't have any luck there. I've heard an MSNBC poll had Kerry 70% as winner. Regardless of how Liberal CNN is, 78% is a pretty big margin with 200k votes so far. Interesting to see how the polls turn out the next few days... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
broooooooce Posted October 1, 2004 Posted October 1, 2004 This thread is filled with the most ignorant crap I've ever read. I knew there was a reason I avoided political discussion on here--because it gripes me to no end that I waste my time folding for a place where the majority of users support the barely literate bush child. I mean, I can't even fathom for a moment--not for a second even--why anyone with even a small amount of common sense would want to doom our country to four more years of this administration's self serving haphazard ineptitude. What a shame. If a chimpanzee were the only 'person' running against dubya, I'd cross my fingers and vote for the monkey. I would gladly take the time to explain my views and post detailed rebuttals of each point posted on here that I disagree with if I had any faith whatsoever in the ability of the majority of users here to objectively consider what I have to say. It may sound like a cop-out (it may even be a cop-out), I'd just rather not waste my time. See ya at the polls! Bruce Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts