Commander PK Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 If you use only power of speech to decide who won the debate, then yes Kerry won. He speaks better than Bush, this should surprise nobody, but does that mean he's more intelligent, or would be a better leader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted October 1, 2004 Author Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Chopper Dave How can you possibly think Bush came even close? Kerry clearly came across more poised, more intelligent, and he didn't dodge the questions. He DID address the "flip-flop" buzz word, and it made perfect sense. He changed his mind because the evidence presented to him was misleading. Like he said, you can be convinced of something and still be wrong. Bush didn't seem to grasp that. Bush sounded like a fool. I may be biased against Bush, and you guys may be biased against Kerry, but anyone can see that Bush looked lost up there. And as for both being terrible public speakers, what are you talking about? I only saw one. Given, Kerry didn't land a knockout punch, but that was because they weren't allowed to address each other, per the Bush campaign's request during the negotiations. They are both terrible public speakers, plain and simple. If you don't think so, you clearly haven't seen what a real orator can do. Or you are in fact biased. Either way, they both suck. I can give you clear examples if you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Honest question, Tarhog: do you have any evidence for that last assertion? This is a guy who didn't have the cahones to back the FIRST Gulf War, when Hussein was occupying Kuwait and potentially threatening to seize 2/3rds of the world's oil reserves. I'm supposed to believe he's going to support taking strong action against N. Korea or Iran???? Technically, I suppose you're correct. I can't call it a 'lie' because its something he never had to take a stand on. Thats why its such a cheap shot. And we were sold a bill of goods during the Clinton administration related to N. Korea. That particular battle was lost during the 8 years prior to Bush coming into office, not because of the 'distraction' of the Iraq invasion as Kerry asserts. I do agree that N. Korea and Iran are the next big dilemmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by skinsfan51 What blows me away is when Kerry blasts Bush for "putting our troops in harms way" and then tells us point blank, "I WILL hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are." With who will he do that with? American troops in harms way? Of course. He's such a hypocrite. His plan gets Americans killed, too. There is no way around it in this war on terror. We don't need a flip-flop who is indecisive and wants to go to bed with N. Korea and the U.N. Flip-flop, indecisive, got any more Republican buzz-words? If troops have to die, it better be the last resort and for a cause that makes sense. What gives you the impression he wants to go to bed with N. Korea, especially when he singled them out as the #1 threat in the world? And don't think that I'm going to debate with you, I'm not, because you're ridiculous. I'm just addressing your post as the general hard-line Republican view. I'd be replying even if it wasn't posted by you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Zen-like Todd They are both terrible public speakers, plain and simple. If you don't think so, you clearly haven't seen what a real orator can do. Or you are in fact biased. Either way, they both suck. I can give you clear examples if you want. Go ahead, because the general consensus (TV coverage, I know, not the most reliable) says he spoke well. And I happen to agree. And yes, I've heard Kennedy, King, Clinton, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 The impression about Korea, Dave, is that he wants Bi-lateral talks. Bi-lateral talks with Korea is bad bad bad. Gives them the upperhand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan2 The impression about Korea, Dave, is that he wants Bi-lateral talks. Bi-lateral talks with Korea is bad bad bad. Gives them the upperhand Maybe it's bad. We don't know, because we're not pursuing them. I have a feeling that maybe they'd listen more if we treated them with respect (not that I think they deserve it) and talked to them like proverbial men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Chopper Dave Flip-flop, indecisive, got any more Republican buzz-words? If troops have to die, it better be the last resort and for a cause that makes sense. What gives you the impression he wants to go to bed with N. Korea, especially when he singled them out as the #1 threat in the world? And don't think that I'm going to debate with you, I'm not, because you're ridiculous. I'm just addressing your post as the general hard-line Republican view. I'd be replying even if it wasn't posted by you. 1. If it that's what it is, then that's what it is. Bush gave multiple examples on how Kerry is indecisive. 2. Bi-Lateral talks with North Korea is a concession, and exactly what Kim Jong Ill hopes to pressure us into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 In 1994 Clinton pursued Bi-lateral talks with NK. Those, a decade later, are now a clear failure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Chopper Dave Maybe it's bad. We don't know, because we're not pursuing them. I have a feeling that maybe they'd listen more if we treated them with respect (not that I think they deserve it) and talked to them like proverbial men. WEll NK is a bit tricky, we can't really invade because they have nukes, and sanctions don't seem to work either. What is the solution I wonder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qb18_200400 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry Wins this debate in my opinion. Bush........just........damn........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Kerry won, but it wasn't a landslide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Chopper Dave Maybe it's bad. We don't know, because we're not pursuing them. I have a feeling that maybe they'd listen more if we treated them with respect (not that I think they deserve it) and talked to them like proverbial men. Are you kidding me? The N. Koreans have manipulated and duped us on multiple occasions. We talked our @sses off to them throughout the 1990's. They deceived us, made empty promises, stalled us, and ultimately built the very weapons we PAID them not to produce. And the solution is to 'talk' and show them 'respect'? I'm not trying to be condescending, I swear, but do you have any idea whats transpired over the past decade? The ONLY hope of convincing them to abandon their pursuit is to demonstrate to them that they will not be successful in using nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip for aid and other concessions, and by convincing the Chinese that their favored trading position with the US will disappear if they do not act responsibly in convincing their whacked out neighbor to fall in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 .Kerry is a Tool:doh: Nothing wrong with anti-bush but please come with something else :doh: One extreme to another is not going to help any situation at all and make us more vulnerable as a country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted October 1, 2004 Author Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Chopper Dave Go ahead, because the general consensus (TV coverage, I know, not the most reliable) says he spoke well. And I happen to agree. And yes, I've heard Kennedy, King, Clinton, etc. 1) Mentioning an incomplete list of countries when discussing the troops on the ground. Allowed for an immediate rebuttal from Bush that took away from the overall point and allowed Bush to castigate Kerry for his lack of appreciation for countries involved in the effort. Just flat out poor execution. 2) While trying to emphasize his position as the candidate who would build coalitions and alliances instead of going things alone, he unnecessarily brought North Korea into the discussion multiple times, alternating between his point on multilateral benefits, and commenting that Kerry would END the multilateral talks with North Korea and open bilateral talks with them. Completely contradictory, and something he did to himself. Again, terrible execution. Good speakers don't lay traps for themselves. 3) He stopped himself in the middle of a discussion about homeland security by saying he wouldnt get off on another subject, then looked at the lights, said oh, I have more time, then launched into a highly abbreviated version of what he had just said was another subject for discussion, jammed into the end of the question. Honestly, if you think Kerry is within light years of ANY of the people you mentioned, you need to do some serious soul searching. A final point, so you dont get confused, nor confuse the two issues. This isn't a comment on who I think won the debate. The point was that both of them are terrible public speakers. And they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by G-Train 1. If it that's what it is, then that's what it is. Bush gave multiple examples on how Kerry is indecisive. 2. Bi-Lateral talks with North Korea is a concession, and exactly what Kim Jong Ill hopes to pressure us into. 1. What? In Bush's "decisiveness", we've waged a losing war for no apparent reason. And I really didn't get the impression that Bush gave any salient examples amidst his struggle to formulate sentences. 2. Because we see what being pigheaded has gotten us, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Tarhog Are you kidding me? The N. Koreans have manipulated and duped us on multiple occasions. We talked our @sses off to them throughout the 1990's. They deceived us, made empty promises, stalled us, and ultimately built the very weapons we PAID them not to produce. And the solution is to 'talk' and show them 'respect'? I'm not trying to be condescending, I swear, but do you have any idea whats transpired over the past decade? The ONLY hope of convincing them to abandon their pursuit is to demonstrate to them that they will not be successful in using nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip for aid and other concessions, and by convincing the Chinese that their favored trading position with the US will disappear if they do not act responsibly in convincing their whacked out neighbor to fall in line. Fair enough. All I know is that what Bush has been doing hasn't worked. Maybe you should run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Chopper Dave Flip-flop, indecisive, got any more Republican buzz-words? If troops have to die, it better be the last resort and for a cause that makes sense. Is Bush going after terrorists in Afgan right now? Do you agree with KERRY that Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed? Do you agree with KERRY that diplomacy would have worked after he over and over and over scoffed at over a dozen U.N. resolutions? How many "last resorts" do you want? You had Slick Willy for eight years. He didn't do anything. Bush I failed, too. Something tells me that if Gore were Pres. Saddam would still be flaunting his paper crown at the leaders of the world. So tell us all, Dave, WHAT cause "makes sense" for American soldiers to die for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Hey, at least I attempt to be honest. Kerry outperformed Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Zen-like Todd 2) While trying to emphasize his position as the candidate who would build coalitions and alliances instead of going things alone, he unnecessarily brought North Korea into the discussion multiple times, alternating between his point on multilateral benefits, and commenting that Kerry would END the multilateral talks with North Korea and open bilateral talks with them. Completely contradictory, and something he did to himself. Again, terrible execution. Good speakers don't lay traps for themselves. Honestly, if you think Kerry is within light years of ANY of the people you mentioned, you need to do some serious soul searching. 2) Kerry never said anything about ending multilateral talks with N. Korea, just beginning bilateral talks in addition. Bush talked about ending them. And I agree, Kerry isn't close to any of them, but Bush is still light years away from Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I must admit I'm shocked at the amount of people in the polls who believe that Kerry won this debate. If Americans are so easily swayed, by a candidate who simply speaks better than the other, we are all going to be in a world of sh#t if that's all they use to base their decision off of. I heard one person on the news, who claims she is undecided state "Bush tried to scare us, Kerry made me feel better." Well, if that's what you want to do is feel better, then you want to forget that we are fighting a war, and we have to accept that. We can feel good after we win this war. Bush doesn't scare us, the facts and hard realities of this war we are fighting is what scares us. He just tells us what we need to hear, whether we want to or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by skinsfan51 Is Bush going after terrorists in Afgan right now? Do you agree with KERRY that Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed? Do you agree with KERRY that diplomacy would have worked after he over and over and over scoffed at over a dozen U.N. resolutions? How many "last resorts" do you want? You had Slick Willy for eight years. He didn't do anything. Bush I failed, too. Something tells me that if Gore were Pres. Saddam would still be flaunting his paper crown at the leaders of the world. So tell us all, Dave, WHAT cause "makes sense" for American soldiers to die for? I just told you that I wasn't debating you. If someone else would like to ask the question, I'd be more than happy to answer. I just used your topic to debate the general right-wing viewpoint. I truly to hate everything you stand for, I won't deal with you. If someone reasonable would like to ask the same thing, go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted October 1, 2004 Author Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Chopper Dave 2) Kerry never said anything about ending multilateral talks with N. Korea, just beginning bilateral talks in addition. Bush talked about ending them. And I agree, Kerry isn't close to any of them, but Bush is still light years away from Kerry. Err.... You do understand the concept of bilateral talks, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by G-Train I must admit I'm shocked at the amount of people in the polls who believe that Kerry won this debate. If Americans are so easily swayed, by a candidate who simply speaks better than the other, we are all going to be in a world of sh#t if that's all they use to base their decision off of. I heard one person on the news, who claims she is undecided state "Bush tried to scare us, Kerry made me feel better." Well, if that's what you want to do is feel better, then you want to forget that we are fighting a war, and we have to accept that. We can feel good after we win this war. Bush doesn't scare us, the facts and hard realities of this war we are fighting is what scares us. He just tells us what we need to hear, whether we want to or not. The thing is, he started the war (edit) in Iraq. The real war was brought to us on 9/11. We took it back to them, and then he used it as an excuse to take us into Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by Zen-like Todd Err.... You do understand the concept of bilateral talks, right? Yes, and I understand that they and multilateral talks aren't mutually exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.