I suppose in the end, both candidates were repeating themselves a lot. But Bush sure looked like he was half-playing around, shaking his head and smirking around like that. Then with comments like: “I know how these guys work!” and never owning up to the WMD travesty, it was clear to me Kerry was better.
From another site, which I agree with for the most part:
Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense knows that the debates aren’t for the candidates to argue with eachother. The debates are a forum for getting your message out to the voters. That’s why the viewership drops off 80 percent after the first debate. People tune in to see what the candidates have to say to the public at large.
We can all agree that Kerry is more articulate than Bush, but being able to pronounce words well doesn’t mean that your words hold substance. Kerry offered no clear plan on how he was going to accomplish anything once he got in office.
“I’m going to bring in other nations to help with Iraq….”
How?
“I’m going to increase funding for medicare and education…”
How?
“I’m going to restore the respect of the United States across the world…”
How?
On top of that, Kerry flat out lied in a couple of parts. Remember early on in the debate where Kerry accused the president of not spending a “single nickle” on police and fire? Remember the rebuttal where Bush said that he spent 3.7 BILLION on police and fire?
The debates aren’t about who pronounces nuclear more correctly, they’re about getting your ideas out to the public in as clear a manner as possible. Bush did that. Bush offered his resolve and his unwavering ideology as a reason to vote for him. Kerry offered literally nothing, except for the fact that he wasn’t Bush.
[quote author=“AndruGearLive”]Kerry offered literally nothing, except for the fact that he wasn’t Bush.
:lol:
Thanks, I needed that :D
^^I agree with above statement^^
I want to extend an invitation to all the democrats out there…
How about we’ll stop beating the “Clinton/Monica affair” horse to death, if you’ll stop it with the WMD’s?
You can’t prove that there were no WMD’s, and in fact, most intelligence (especially prior intelligence gather over the years) at the time pointed to the contrary. Also, let us not forget the fact that he (Saddam) had chance after chance to comply fully with the resolutions, and he had been given a last chance to leave the country and spare his country a war “they didn’t want”. Looking at DS2 in hindsight, is no where near useful to us…so please, let the darned thing go.
I have to say I didn’t watch so i probably shouldn’t comment on the above. While I am biased.. I’m more of a Kerry supporter.. I feel like both sides are always going to be guilty of what you accused of Kerry above (lies, vagueness.. etc).. If not in the debate last night in the grand scheme of the campaign. The Republican Party has also churned out lies and vague ideas… Basically my point is that people always accuse the party they don’t support of “well they lied about this, they did this, they did that”.. when in most cases their own party has done the same thing.. if not on the same issue, then on another. In Government and Politics we learned all about the Propaganda tactics.. and it’s amazing how clear you can see the candidates use them.
I don’t know.. I guess my point is that you can’t just look at who’s been vague, who’s lied.. but really for facts… and unbiased ones. http://www.factcheck.org - great unbiased site that does what it says.. checks facts.. checks the accuracy of statements and commercials by candidates. It’s hard to get the truth and it takes effort to really learn about what candidates plan to do… I’ll stop because i feel like i can’t arrive at a clear point.. you catch my drift.
EDIT: my post wasn’t in response to minijiggas but the one above it.
also i just got an emial that factcheck did an article on the debate.. if you’d like to see some of the things the candidates said that weren’t correct.
[quote author=“AndruGearLive”]
Remember the rebuttal where Bush said that he spent 3.7 BILLION on police and fire?
They closed down firehouses in my old neighborhood in Manhattan. Actually several were closed. :o At least Kerry is making an attempt to appeal to other nations, even if he didn’t present all the details. Bush is simply going at it stubbornly and alone.
So I’m kind of biased as I’m a slight Kerry supporter and that I know friends in the military. But I also think it’s important to remember that there is no honest politician. As bas as Bush looks, it’s because he’s been in office for four years. As such, we’ve seen part of his hidden agenda. Kerry’s a fresh face. He may offer all of these great things, but he has ulterior motives too.
With that said, I was kind of unsatisfied with the way Bush handled questions about Iraq and WMD. Sure, Kerry didn’t offer any sort of definitive answers as to HOW he might go about handling the current situation. But Bush’s answer was, and has always been that we’re going to stay in it for as long as we have to. So fill me in if I missed something, but Saddam never admitted to having WMD. But hasn’t North Korea openly admitted to having WMD, openly admitted that they’ve tested it, and that they’re more than willing to use it if need be? Why aren’t we fighting there? We’ve been in Iraq for all of these months and we’ve uncovered nothing, regardless of what previous intelligence is telling us. Seems to me that the only reasons we’re still in Iraq is 1) to prove a point, 2) because we don’t know how to get out of it without looking bad, 3) because Bush needs to finish what his father couldn’t.
I suppose I’m biased when it comes to this whole Iraq thing. I don’t think that we as Americans truly realize what goes on there. Thousands die every day (civilians and soldiers). Bush wanted to keep the pictures of the bodies being brought home from reaching the public. Because it’s happening every day and we don’t seem to realize just how bad it is. The worst thing in the world is to hear about a schoolmate that joined the army to help fight for “the greater good” and then learning that they were coming back in a coffin. All for what? Because one country decided that it had to police the entire world.
I had more to say, but I think I’m babbling and getting incoherent. I leave you with this:
To be a Republican, you must believe….
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Viet Nam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s driving record is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
You support states’ rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the ‘80s is irrelevant.
What’s wrong with the science behind creationism being taught in schools, when evolution is just a theory? I am not saying teach about God in school, but there are very solid facts pointing to some sort of creator/creation having taken place that have great scientific backing behind it. I dont like how the government tries to regulate that sort of thing.
But a lot of the points above seem to be exaggerations to me. I am personally not a democrat or a republican. I basically vote for whomever I think is best in each category.
[quote author=“AndruGearLive”]What’s wrong with the science behind creationism being taught in schools, when evolution is just a theory? I am not saying teach about God in school, but there are very solid facts pointing to some sort of creator/creation having taken place that have great scientific backing behind it. I dont like how the government tries to regulate that sort of thing.
But a lot of the points above seem to be exaggerations to me. I am personally not a democrat or a republican. I basically vote for whomever I think is best in each category.
I don’t think the point attacked creationism as being something that shouldn’t be taught in schools. The wording of the statement was:
“Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools. ” The way I read it was that we believe in things that haven’t been inconvlusively proven true (creationism, the existence of God), while we disregard things that we know to actually happen (global warming, tobacco and cancer).
Ahhhhh…got it. But the same can be said of the teaching of macroevolution in school as well. But, is it saying that republicans disagree that smoking causes cancer?
[quote author=“minijigga”][quote author=“AndruGearLive”]Kerry offered literally nothing, except for the fact that he wasn’t Bush.
:lol:
Thanks, I needed that :D
^^I agree with above statement^^
I want to extend an invitation to all the democrats out there…
How about we’ll stop beating the “Clinton/Monica affair” horse to death, if you’ll stop it with the WMD’s?
You can’t prove that there were no WMD’s, and in fact, most intelligence (especially prior intelligence gather over the years) at the time pointed to the contrary. Also, let us not forget the fact that he (Saddam) had chance after chance to comply fully with the resolutions, and he had been given a last chance to leave the country and spare his country a war “they didn’t want”. Looking at DS2 in hindsight, is no where near useful to us…so please, let the darned thing go.
let me point out a few things. 1. “How about we’ll stop beating the “Clinton/Monica affair” horse to death, if you’ll stop it with the WMD’s?” To mention the two in the same sentence, as if they are in any way equal acts of wrongdoing, is ignorant.
2. “Also, let us not forget the fact that he (Saddam) had chance after chance to comply fully with the resolutions, and he had been given a last chance to leave the country and spare his country a war “they didn’t want”” What did the resolutions say? Disarm. Kind of hard for you to disarm a bunch of nuclear weapons that you don’t have, isn’t it?
[quote author=“AndruGearLive”]What’s wrong with the science behind creationism being taught in schools, when evolution is just a theory? I am not saying teach about God in school, but there are very solid facts pointing to some sort of creator/creation having taken place that have great scientific backing behind it. I dont like how the government tries to regulate that sort of thing.
But a lot of the points above seem to be exaggerations to me. I am personally not a democrat or a republican. I basically vote for whomever I think is best in each category.
Evolution isn’t a theory anymore. We all know, as in everything, nothing can be proven beyond 99% but evolution, at least in the scientific community, has proven itself well beyond deserving the title of “theory.” I’d be interested in this creator/creation scientific backing if you could point me in the direction. I personally don’t believe that creationism should be taught in the schools. Whereas evolution is secular, more or less proven, and it applies to the world. If you teach Creationism, you had better teach it in the Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindi, and Buddhist perspectives.
As for the debates, I think Kerry won. If you watched any of the post-debate coverage it was clear who the media thought won as well. And don’t give me that “liberal media” crap either because Joe Scarborough, a hardcore republican, even said that Bush got owned. There were falsifications on both sides so I’m going to mostly ignore them. In terms of the quality of their debate styles, Kerry looked polished, clear, and knew what he was talking about whereas Bush started out strong but about 30 minutes in he started fumbling and he looked irritated. We’ll see how the next two debates go but as for this one, it was supposed to be Bush’s strong-point talking about his international accomplishments but Kerry really held his own and got in some really good points, especially about North Korea. I know Bush doesn’t like bilateral communications and he thinks it will break up the 5 country debates taking place now. What he fails to realize is that each of these countries are already have bilateral talks with North Korea and have asked the US to do the same. Why doesn’t anyone listen to Powell?
I may be way off here (though I and most of my college professors don’t think so) but Evolution is no longer considered ‘just a theory’.
I’m also curious as to what this ‘solid facts’ are that point to creationism? I’m aware of many theories on the begining of the universe and all in it, but most of those point to the big bang or some on physical/logical/scientific creation without any creator.
And don’t confuse me, I’m not saying I’m for or against either, or that I do or don’t believe in either. I’m simply ignorant of the ‘solid facts’ of which you speak. Enlighten me.
[quote author=“HectorGearLive”][quote author=“SpiceLMF”] http://www.factcheck.org - great unbiased site that does what it says.. checks facts..
There are more Bush lies in that link than Kerry ones. 👏
:lol:
haha i just noticed that the first page was mostly correcting fallicies made by Bush.. but I swear it is unbiased.. if you go to more articles you’ll go to a bunch of ones correcting Kerry.. read some of the articles.. it’s a great website..
I actually spent the night with my dad and like 5 of his republican friends.. of course politics comes up.. I’m pretty Liberal.. so of course they’re all bashing on me.. they made some valid points but some we’re things that I had read on factcheck to be clearly wrong.. and factcheck is one source that I trust.. they really do their research.. i’d try to explain why something they said wasn’t totally correct and they’d be like “NO It’s true!”.. it was prety bad.. and some issues i’m less informed then others.. it can be hard to articulate your feelings on an issue when 6 adults are yelling that you’re wrong.. haha.
I think Bush got pwned by Kerry. Whenever Kerry made an intelligent point Bush sort of mumbled and said random crap about how Kerry was disrespectful, whereas Kerry made a solid argument in return to Bush’s tougher questions. Also, I would like to hear some “concrete evidence” about creationism. If you want to convert a “heathen” atheist, here’s your chance.
[quote author=“AndruGearLive”]From another site, which I agree with for the most part:
Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense knows that the debates aren’t for the candidates to argue with each other. The debates are a forum for getting your message out to the voters. That’s why the viewership drops off 80 percent after the first debate. People tune in to see what the candidates have to say to the public at large.
We can all agree that Kerry is more articulate than Bush, but being able to pronounce words well doesn’t mean that your words hold substance. Kerry offered no clear plan on how he was going to accomplish anything once he got in office.
“I’m going to bring in other nations to help with Iraq….”
How?
“I’m going to increase funding for medicare and education…”
How?
“I’m going to restore the respect of the United States across the world…”
How?
On top of that, Kerry flat out lied in a couple of parts. Remember early on in the debate where Kerry accused the president of not spending a “single nickle” on police and fire? Remember the rebuttal where Bush said that he spent 3.7 BILLION on police and fire?
The debates aren’t about who pronounces nuclear more correctly, they’re about getting your ideas out to the public in as clear a manner as possible. Bush did that. Bush offered his resolve and his unwavering ideology as a reason to vote for him. Kerry offered literally nothing, except for the fact that he wasn’t Bush.
Bush took it home tonight.
1. Bush had more inaccuracies/LIES than Kerry.
2. Offering “Resolve”? Listen, when I vote for the leader of the free world, I don’t vote based on “Resolve”. I vote on whether he can get the job done. If I wanted someone with strictly my viewpoints and my ethics and my morals and my intelligence, I’d vote for me, ie. I’d get in the ring and run for president myself.
Besides, his only defense of his war record was “It’s hard work” (as if anyone’s ever questioned that before), “I know how these people think” (you’re telling a 20 year Senator about how foreign politicians work when you’ve only been dealing in foreign affairs for 3 1/2 years yourself?), and “You have to stay firm and resolute” (what does that matter if your initial policies were wrong-headed in the first place?). Bush’s utter bullheadedness (“I an right; you are wrong. You have to trust me.) and absolute lack of ability to show some humility and admit any mistake is my biggest beef with him.
3. There’s no way with the current format of the debates (32 PAGES OF RULES, PEOPLE!!) for either side to totally outline any initiatives. That’s what web pages are for!
4. Did you and I watch the same debate? Bush looked like he wanted to be back at home eating pretzels or something. In the first 30 minutes, he was okay, but he quickly ran out of things to say, started stuttering, and gave off the demeanor of someone who couldn’t be bothered to defend his presidency. As president, if you can’t handle your responsibilities, and at least seem, uh, I don’t know, presidential, then you should resign.
I could add more, but I gotta go.
BTW, this wasn’t addressed to you Dru, but to the person who originally wrote this post, whoever it was.
[quote author=“mattmag”]I think Bush got pwned by Kerry. Whenever Kerry made an intelligent point Bush sort of mumbled and said random crap about how Kerry was disrespectful, whereas Kerry made a solid argument in return to Bush’s tougher questions. Also, I would like to hear some “concrete evidence” about creationism. If you want to convert a “heathen” atheist, here’s your chance.
that’s because Bush DID get pwned by Kerry. Kerry made Bush his BIOTCH
This is the sad thing about making Bush look like an idiot (not hard). He appeals to the lowest common denominator. “Plain folks” are sitting at home going, “Bush talks like me,” “my neighbor sounds like Bush,” “Why does Kerry have to sound all smart and make Bush feel bad.” People don’t account for the fact that the majority of the US is populated by idiots, idiots that sound a lot like Bush. Also, a lot of people don’t know about how bad we screwed up North Korea. That was the issue which Kerry just drilled Bush on but most people probably did pick up on that.
[quote author=“Andreux”]:P When it comes to politics on this forum, I always see sweet jesus as our resident Democrat and minijigga as our resident Republican
Thanks, I’m honored. I actually consider myself a socialist but in the US, democrat is about as liberal as I can get. 😛
Yikes…I think socialism is ok to an extent because americans should have proper healthcare when they need it but socialism to the extent of communism is proven to fail. Just look back in history to ancient rome…towards the end they were giving handouts to the poor people, and thus the poor became reliant on the government to feed them, house them, etc…I think people need to learn how to become self-sufficient and not rely on the government for everything, instead of giving welfare to everyone, teach some of them how to be productive…i dunno
[quote author=“Attica”]Yikes…I think socialism is ok to an extent because americans should have proper healthcare when they need it but socialism to the extent of communism is proven to fail. Just look back in history to ancient rome…towards the end they were giving handouts to the poor people, and thus the poor became reliant on the government to feed them, house them, etc…I think people need to learn how to become self-sufficient and not rely on the government for everything, instead of giving welfare to everyone, teach some of them how to be productive…i dunno
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no communist. There’s a big difference. Socialism combines the wonder of universal health care and welfare programs with the incentives of capitalism (you just pay more in taxes). Communism is a nice idea but it would never work because it takes out the factor of incentives. Who wants to do a harder job for the same money as the garbage man? Freakin no one. Keep in mind that true communism has never been practiced, at least not Marxist/Leninist communism (Lenin laid his groundwork but died and Stalin ruined it). The Inca empire came about as close as you’re ever going to get to a “utopian” society. I in no way endorse or condone communism; attempt at your own risk. 😉
