did you watch the debate tonight with bush and kerry? what did you think?
Printable View
did you watch the debate tonight with bush and kerry? what did you think?
I saw it last night. As an outsider (I'm English) these things always seem so bizarre. The insane level of attention to every tiny detail and efforts to orchestrate and stage manage the event seem a direct contradiction to the idea of a debate, which I would imagine should be about thinking on your feet and displaying your ability to react the unforseen. (Our political system's going down that route too sadly these days.)
Bush looked like what he is - a strategically-shaved monkey - but a very highly trained one. Kerry came across as much more clued up and reasonable. While I gather most of the polls suggest that Kerry came off best, my gut feeling is that he seemed too intellectual. Voters go for folk that remind them of themselves, which sadly on balance means they sympathise with idiots, on which count Bush should win by a landslide.
I saw it as well and being an outsider as well and a nieghbour, I thought the same as Caligula. it's sad to realize that peope want the common man for a job that the common man can't do.
Also an outsider, I didn't see it. I'm also not going to bother, mainly because I read up on the conditions of the *debate* (a very loose term indeed) prior to the sending. The audience were never to be shown; neither could address questions to the other; the listening debater was never to be shown when the other was speaking; only certain camera angles were to be used; the debaters were not allowed to move more than a certain distance from their positions and so on.
I suspect that the script writers would have been upset if a wrong word was used too.
If anyone hasn't come across the debate, there's a complete transcript in the Des Moines Register at http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb...EWS09/40930003
i thought the debate was pure comedy the pres is such a fucking idiot
outsider here and i also agree with caligula but then that could be because of my personal dislike of bush making me quite bias
On Style...Kerry.
On Content...Bush.
Like one person said after it...Kerry lectured the American People where as Bush talked to them. What worried me though was Kerry's backtracking on answers he gave earlier in the debate in regards to Iraq. Bush had a valid and simple point that you can't get support for something you yourself do not believe in...plus Kerry had horrible answers in terms of the U.N....it's not a popularity contest. You have to work for the best interest of the nation YOU lead first and foremost...and lastly his summit idea is wishful thinking at best.
Kerry gave few detailed examples but he said what he said quite well...but he felt too much like an actor wanting to be president than someone who understands what he's getting into...and his answers in terms of N.Korea were evident of it. Hell any plan Wes Clark would support is something to worry about and question.
I mean come on...you can't critique the president on having "weak alliances" then promote a plan that follows the same path...one wonders if Kerry really thought about some of his answers.
1 down 2 to go...should be fun.
I am having a hard time deciding between Bush and Kerry because I hate them both. I would have voted for Wesley Clark. Why don't you like him?
Character...he displayed too many times he's not a guy to trust. His own superiours felt that way as did those who worked for him. It's what lead to the end of his military career really...also his views on modern warfare are painfully outdated in terms of how to use troops and joint operations and tactics...his total lack of being able to deal with the political process in his own military campeigns shows he has little backbone for the hard choices required for the position of president. His time in Europe really effected how he makes choices and none were for the better....Quote:
Originally Posted by karyn
He was out of his league in his past job and he was out of his league in this one.
He's like a guy who thinks he knows how to work the system to get what he wants but fails to realize it's not him who's working the system...he's simply giving more than he's getting.
I haven't really been a fan for quite some time so when he ran for president and Mikey Moore endorsed him I gut laughed for about 2 days...
i was listening to the debate at work over the radio and only one thing came to mind and that was the t shirt from tshirt hell that says "do we have to have a president?"
yeah but what do you expect from the liberal media? it's just all just a part of the left-wing agenda.
ah, it's so nice to be a republican. that way if anyone says anything I don't like, I can just use vague meaningless buzz-words to critisize them, and don't have to have any facts or even any real argument at all to support my position.
Seeing as I am sick of politics to begin with, I did not watch the debate. I am going to write in James Earl Jones this November. Most of our problems here in America today stems from people wanting a "leader" in office. What we need is some monkey who knows how to check and balance the powers that the offices have (the senate, congress, ect). We need "leader" like we need three anuses.
Same could be said for the other side of the coin...Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
Left-wing!?!
yes, but the joke is that they are all republicans. since we have a republic, not a democracy. har har har. ooh it's time for the simpsons. I much better use of time that was interupted yesterday by some dorks who wish they were as witty and smart.
The VP debate is usually the one that determines who will be president, for example, Al Gore wiped the fucking floor with Dan Quayle. And Cheney made Lieberman look more retarded than normal. Most political analysts pay more attention to the VP debate than the Presidential one.
wow this is interesting, here in canada we just pick who has the best comercial!
Left wing is, of course, any thing which doesn't tune in with an extreme conservative point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wol265
For some Hitler, Franco and Mussolini are left wing because their party names used the world Democratic or Socialist in the title - much the same as the East German name was the Democratic Republic, and had nothing to do with democracy.
Bush frightens me. Any politician who tries to pass an amendment that is anti-equal rights should be impeached and it sickens me that he is ahead in the polls. I didn't vote for him last time, I won't vote for him this time.
Kerry just scares me. But at least he isn't Bush.
I like Ralph Nader but we all know a third party will never be elected president.
I'd like a tax break, but fuck voting for that poorly trained chimpanzee. I thought Bush came off like a total moron. He is stupider than I thought.
The German papers cover the general idea of what happened in the tv debate today. The general consensus is that both candidates seem to be rather sparse with the truth, both appeared to change their minds during the debate against their own set policies or what they had already said, and both were overwhelmingly shallow.
However, it seems that Kerry came out better.
The farcical nature of the business is underlined by the fact that unless I've been mixing up news coverage and some crazy political sit-com, Dubya's an imbecile. That on its own should be sufficient to make him an untenable candidate. The fact that the most powerful power on earth is run by someone who'd have trouble passing the aptitude test to be a janitor is black comedy of the highest order.
The focus is almost wholly on Iraq. Which is legitimate I guess as it's a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Nobody over there remember Vietnam? I would imagine Kerry does. He was there, and even if he'd just sat and cried like a schoolgirl, instead of winning medals, surely that gives him a moral authority over someone who pulled strings to allow him to sit at home jerking off.
Bush's puppetmasters are obsessed with 'flip flopping' which in straight terms means changing your mind. This is what intelligent people do when further information or reflection moves them to alter their position. It reflects maturity and open-mindedness, not cowardice or feeble-mindedness. By way of comparison, it's wise to be wary of someone who makes a virtue of a refusal to adapt or at least reconsider concerning complicated questions. The weakness of wanting to have a master who is wholly infalible is the human failing that led to such political heavyweights as Pol Pot, Stalin and crew.
Three important points that the American electorate ignore at their peril. One. Political dynasties are what you fought us to avoid at the birth of your republic. They are the plague of many of the most dangerous nations on earth - China, India, Saudi Arabia - yet you appear to be welcoming this with open arms. The Kennedys were bad for America, the Bush's are far worse. Two. Religion. When you won your independence from us, one of the first things you did was enshrine the seperation between church and state. The real war is not between terrorists and the US president. It is between secular logic and religious fanaticism. Clinton, at least, understood this. The fact that the man with his finger nearest the nuclear button is a burn again Christian - who by definition looking forward to armageddon - is frankly fucking terrifying. Three, increasing numbers of experts are now agreed that climate change represents a far greater threat than terrorism. Yet Bush, at the behest of his corporate buddies, reneged on the Kyoto agreement. That isn't flip-flopping. That's dangerous dishonesty of jawdropping proportions - selling our future to make further profits for the nauseatingly rich and selfish.
I'm not a left-winger or liberal by any standards. I don't think Kerry's that great. But Bush is an imbecile and a liability. Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when we need him?
I like sitting home and jerking off. Nothing wrong with that unless you are the kind of person who starts wars for other people to fight.
ah, but that's not good christianly behaviour. better watch out, or they might try and ban that too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by incog
Is it not already banned in some States, like blowjobs and doggy style?Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
I recall hearing the story of a married couple who were arrested for having sex in their own bedroom. It appears that a neighbour saw them at it. The neighbour climbed onto a nearby wall, strained himself over to be able to see through the window, and caught sight of them in a mirror as they performed this disgusting act of public disorder. That is how I read it in a US paper!
if you peopel would even consider voting for bush this world is really going to hell i said when he became prez that he would klill us all and he damn sure tried. don;t let him finish the job plz!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah we call those tabloids...or as the rest of the world likes to call em..."lies". Don't fall for everything you read...the situation you described would not be illegal...however sodomy laws were in the books in many states (Europe gave us that bright idea) and their was a case in Texas of two fellas being prosocuted for it when they "interrupted" by a police raid...funny story to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightingale
Plus U.S. papers are filled with pure garbage on a daily basis...gotta fill up the pages with something...why do you think the entertainment section is so damned massive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LrdSatanas
Fuck if that was his platform I'd make people vote for him at gunpoint..."Push the red button and end this miserable fucking race George!"
It was in the Los Angeles Times and on CNN. They followed the story up when the details came out as to how this married couple were caught because the prosecution was successful and the couple were fined for public indecency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire
I can't find the link now, damn it all to bush and back.
I did not, but I just saw the spoof of it on Saturday Night Live and found it quite accurate and humerous!
if you want a job done right do it yourselfQuote:
Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire
Kerry all the way. For many reasons. He was intelligent, articulate, and has his shit together;]
I'm pretty sure there was a Texas sodomy case against a married couple whose neighbor was peeping on them. Haven't heard of doggy style being illegal anywhere in the US, but I haven't tried to do it in public in every state and county either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightingale
yeah kerry is a good choice. He supports the war on terror, Including here in america with Homeland Security. he says that we need to help train Irai's to become policemen, and have our troops there to protect the new government. He has a plan to Improve our economy and create more jobs and more military...
Oh wait, or is that Bush? I don't remember, cause that's the same fucking thing that they both said.
All politicians say pretty much the same thing, though. It's only the extremists to left and right who come out with the strong stuff - such as closing the borders to foreigners and so on. The main parties always follow the same line, because that's what they believe the majority of Americans want to hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
yeah, politics is so fucking a waste of time talking about, people have no idea what's really going on. they just beleive the bullshit. it's just people that want to argue between the differences of politics AKA. Drama that they don't even think about any of the real issues. shit, politicians don't even take the time to talk about thier FAKE issues, let along the real ones. so what's the use? millions of people are just going to go on spending five minutes every four years punching numbers, and being content beleiving that that was somehow them influencing and having a part in the control of the country.
I wouldn't trust those piece of dogshit media outlets to tell me the sky was blue let alone anything to do with legal cases...the L.A. Times is owned page by page by West Coast Liberals and CNN fell from grace in the late 90's...so when they are mentioned as a credible source it'd be like me linking stuff on Fox News...it's just not gonna be bought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightingale
Sidenote...what happned to killing your neighbors dog as a sign to not fuck around with ones kin and property?
Oh fucking please...those clueless millions as you paint them have lives to live and problems to face...they can't be expected to put the lives of their family and jobs to argue and read about military intelligence meetings, capital hill partisan fighting, and just about everything pundits, analysts, and political editors make careers on...the public will always focus on the issues that directly effect them on a realistic and immediate level not on an abstract of far reaching level. It's simple reality...how can you expect a single mom trying to raise her kids on one income to worry about russian nuclear arms security? Gotta be honest about what effects people...not what makes political junkies get a hard on, college kids bitch about, and new sites harp on...Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory