Debate winner, Kang or Kodos?

Hmmnn... Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!

kengikods.gif
 
This current debate? This arguement could have been made for 2000, when both candidates looked exactly the same on paper, but this is completely different! This was one of the most important debates in recent history!
 
I thought it can be summed up in one word.

Boring.

I even got up to go walk the dog and flipped repeatedly to the Pitt/UConn game. There was no major points scored by anyone worth a newsbyte to last until November.

This was supposedly Kerry's time to knock out Bush on Iraq, it didn't happen.
 
Kerry didn't beat Bush "big time." Neither side scored any real points, and I'll agree with PAD that this debate was extremely boring. I doubt that the polls will fluctuate much from this.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']You admit to not watching a lot of it, but still insist we should respect your review?[/quote]

You're clearly extremely bias and yet we are supposed to respect your review?
 
I don't insist anything, I watched about an hour and fifteen minutes of it.

I struggled for that much.

The whole debate was exactly the talking points and stump speeches from both candidates since the convention. I'm not sure if it was the format, the line of questioning, the fact that Jim Lehrer kept up the same questions that bloggers ask daily or whatever but there was nothing new from anyone.

The discussions about the DPRK were fine but the whole 6 nation talk/bilateral talk might as well have been martians landing on Earth and declaring Xzytanth Day. 98% of the American population couldn't tell you 3 of the 6 parties in those talks. It was over voters heads as far as what they've been expected to hear about from candidates.

If Bush lost I'd say he lost. I could give a flip about who "wins" a debate like none of you care about my interest in polls and trending. The only thing that scores out of debates is a soundbyte that can be used good or bad until November. Nothing like that occured.

Americans won't score this debate like a bunch of political message board junkies. That said this one was a push, see you in round two.
 
Oh, bullshit, PAD - if Bush "won", you've have all-capped some headline telling the liberals to commit suicide now, and not wait 'till Nov. 3.

Instead, Kerry wiped the floor with Bush, you know it, and are downplaying it. It was boring, but it was incredible how utterly discombobulated Bush was the entire time, and how he couldn't say anything without talking about "mixed messages".

Sneh!

seppo
 
I doubt this debate changed any minds. What with the average American these days, I bet the only people that bothered to watch were people who have already made up their minds who to vote for.
 
Were we watching the same debate? BOTH candidates danced around the issues only to come full-circle back to these core statements:

Bush:"Kerry say da war bad. Now say good. Now bad! How can have support for troops when you say this is the wrong way wrong war wrong time! We must stay da course!"

Kerry:"Bush naughty! You no do right thing! We got get UN to Iraq! Your plan not work!"

Now just paraphrase and rearrange ad nauseum and you have the debate. I'll wait for Tuesday since, now that they're loosened up, they'll have some real answers.*false hopes*
 
Bush got pwned. Kerry had him on every front. Bush looked like a pentulant child through most of the debate and rambled his set phrases over and over again while Kerry articulated a plan. I'm just waiting to see how the right spins it.
 
[quote name='evilpenguin9000']Bush got pwned. Kerry had him on every front. Bush looked like a pentulant child through most of the debate and rambled his set phrases over and over again while Kerry articulated a plan. I'm just waiting to see how the right spins it.[/quote]

Articulate as in gave details? I heard no such things, I heard very broad plans that had no real substance to them. Especially when he was supposed to specifically address what he was going to do about terrorism and homeland security from the question, yet he just came out with very vauge answers about putting more money in to various things and getting them done in 4 years or so and then criticized what Bush hadn't done thus far and then babbled about taxes for 30 seconds. To me that's not being articulate or even specific like the question asked for.

To me it's like my prof saying "What are you specifically going to do about that exam tomorrow?" Then my response being "Well I'll study for it for awhile." I wasn't being very articulate or specific was I?
 
How are all you people expecting specific detailed plans when they only have 2 minutes to answer (and sometimes less)? They did what they were supposed to do, GIVE VAGUE, NUTSHELL ANSWERS! If Kerry had gone in to detail on things, he wouldn't have had time to address everything.

EDIT: For clarity, at least Kerry addressed everything he was given. He did far less dancing around the issues, and outlined many of his thoughts in policies (which had previously been a mystery). Bush didn't give ANYTHING except for calling Kerry a flipflopper for the first half hour. Kerry compared each of his ideas to Bush's ideas, never attacking his character (unless it was asked in the question), where as Bush kept falling back on attacks! I think Kerry did a great job because he did very little dancing around the issues, and he said what needed to be said at this debate. Nobody knew what his plans or ideas were, and he said them. He said (if you listened), that if YOU WANTED DETAILS, you could go to johnkerry.com, where his plans were further listed out. Because as I said, trying to fit superspecific details (he included a bunch as it is) into a 1:30 response is kind of asking for too much.
 
I don't normally bother with these things, but I can no longer stand to be silent.

I'll admit, on the surface I would say Kerry "won" the debate. He was more polished and sounded slicker. The real problem I have is when you actually sit down and analyze & think about what he said.

The two biggest points that I got from Kerry in regards to Iraq were that we rushed military action (didn't give diplomacy enough time) and that we didn't have a big enough coalition. Kerry addresses both issues with rosy pie-in-the-sky solutions. They sound great but there is no foundation to them in the real world.

On the "rush to war" issue Kerry suggests that we could have resolved something by passing more UN resolutions, or giving inspectors more time, etc. My question is, how many more resolutions do you pass condeming Iraq before it's no longer a "rush to war"? What's the magic number? If Sadaam Hussein has defied 14 resolutions how many more do we have to pass before it's no longer a rush to war? Is 16 enough? How about 18? 20? And what magic in John Kerry's world is going to kick in on the 20th resolution and all of sudden cause Sadaam to change his pattern of behavior? Was 10 years of weapons inspections not enough? Somehow 12 or 13 would have solved the problem? Sadaam had shown a consistent pattern of defiance and deception and Bush finally said enough was enough. After 9/11 we are no longer going to pussy foot around. We're not going to wait until you do something even worse to us.

Secondly, Kerry wants this grand international coalition to shoulder the burden. Once again, that's great! I agree. It would be wonderful if Germany and France, and {insert your favorite country here} would all help out. But what magic wand is Kerry going to wave that's going to make it all happen? He's going to hold a grand summit? What's the UN if not a summit? Does he think Bush just never asked for assitance from any other country? We presented the evidence against Iraq to {insert your favorite country here} at the UN, and we asked for their support. Bush even asked a few directly. Some agreed and some declined. That's the way the real world works.

All this brings us to Kerry's summary position on Iraq (paraphrasing) "going into Iraq was the right thing to do", after all he did vote for it, "but we went about it the wrong way." We'll ignore the fact that at other points in the debate he implied Iraq was wrong altogether because we should have been focused on Afghanistan or homeland security, or because Sadaam wasn't the mastermind behind 9/11. Here's where we get to issues of core values & leadership & consistency. If going into Iraq is the right thing to do, but by some strange unfortunate quirk of fate your grand plan of solving the worlds problems by passing 2 more UN resolutions and holding a summit and inviting {insert your favorite country here} doesn't result in world peace, what then? Is removing Sadaam from power still the right thing even though {iyfch} doesn't agree? Would Kerry have the strength and will to act without the approval of the global community?

In my opinion, we would be worse off, not better. Either one of two things would happen. If no further major terrorist acts were committed on US soil, America would be farther removed from the terror of 9/11, more complacent, and less willing to support the hard things that have to be done to fight terror. Meanwhile Sadaam would be strengthened, emboldened by 9/11, still promoting terror abroad and in his own country. Libya would not have relinquished its WMD and the list goes on. Or, while Kerry is out summiting & passing meaningless, unenforced UN resolutions, terrorists do strike again (just imagine a 9/11, this time with the aid of Sadaam).

Either way, I prefer the GWB solution. Of all people, gamer's ought to know that you'll never win by only playing defense. Are things perfect in Iraq? No, but they're better than they were 18 months ago under Sadaam.

Kerry put forth some some great ideas in the debate, and Bush never really challenged him on how any of them would be accomplished. So, from a certain point of view, I would say Kerry "won" the debate. But if you don't simply accept everything Kerry said at face value, then I believe Bush was the "winner".

BTW - I did go to JohnKerry.com & look for more details. He says the same thing. He would urge countries to carry through on UN resolutions, etc. In other words, the same things that Bush tried, but they didn't work.

As my final argument I present this one irrefutable fact:
Who does the mighty DLF support? John Kerry? That's enough to get my vote for Bush right there. :)
 
mathrandir: I agree with you completely, and I actually said many of the exact same things that you did when discussing the debates with my parents a couple of hours ago. Really, all that Kerry said in the debate was "I'll hold a summit." That's his master plan, as though inviting everybody to his little get together will automatically make the world love us again. He came out with some nice ideology, but he didn't explain how he intends to put this ideology into effect. I personally believe that it's because he doesn't know. He's winging it; he's saying, "Come on, everybody! We'll sort things out at my huge, cool leader club summit! And it will have--not one, not two--but three clowns."

I don't see how anybody could consider pacifism as a viable solution at this point--I can point to several historical examples where bending over and being polite didn't turn pure evil into delicious candy. To Kerry's credit, he did say that he'll finish what we started in Iraq, and that disarming Saddam was the right choice. Throughout the debate, though, he continually tried to make the case that the way we went about Iraq was "the wrong way." He never really made the distinction between what was the "right way" and what was the "wrong way," and instead he presented a vague counter-scenario where Bush could have given diplomacy more time or gotten our buddies, the French, to help us out.

I could write more but I'm tired and lazy, so since it's 2AM and I have to get up in four hours, I'll cut this short. Kerry was more polished than Bush; I just hope that America probes deeper than the surface of what was said in the debates.
 
[quote name='mathrandir']I Of all people, gamer's ought to know that you'll never win by only playing defense.
[/quote]

As a Gamer I know that if you go play Rambo and attack solo your going to get your ass kicked by the other team. And so far the US has pretty much gone solo in the war against Iraq. JK is offering a chance of new allies. Bush just dismisses the idea and says the allies we have now are fine. I think JK will be more willing to split the Iraq pie with the world and that will bring in more support. And support doesn't have to mean troops, if it came in the form of money or fuel I don't care what country it comes from as long as it's free and helps save americans lives.
 
BUsh got beaten bad and the Republicans can't stand it and so they're spinning just as fast as they can. I'm enjoying the hell out of this. Kerry looked presidential and Bush looked like a spoiled frat boy just put on double secret probation.
 
I thought it was pretty even.

Bush scored big points on using Kerry's own statements against him, saying he has basically described himself as unfit for command in past statements given his current positions. Also Bush dominated on North Korea, where Kerry seemed to make up "facts" while Bush pressed strongly and persuasively that we need to have China, the country with the most influence over North Korea, with us in the negotiations. Thirdly, Bush did well to criticize Kerry's discounting of our current allies in Iraq.

Kerry was correct and effective in pointing out the stupidity and hypocrisy of Bush's support of the development of tactical nukes. He also was effective on Iraq, where he has plenty of ammunition, although a couple of misstatements there prevented what could have been a better outcome for him. Kerry also did pretty well in presenting that he would be a strong leader, something very important for him in this election.

I call it a draw. Bush did well on some things but failed to articulate some of the strongest positions he has on certain issues. Kerry came off looking very confident but had a hard time with his positions on North Korea and Iran.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Bush scored big points on using Kerry's own statements against him, saying he has basically described himself as unfit for command in past statements given his current positions.[/quote]
Bush did a OK job on this topic, but he didn't manage to push it nearly as hard as he could/should have. It was the beginning of a good attack, but one that wound up faltering before it could do any real damage.

Also Bush dominated on North Korea, where Kerry seemed to make up "facts" while Bush pressed strongly and persuasively that we need to have China, the country with the most influence over North Korea, with us in the negotiations.
Click to expand...
Actually, I thought Bush did a pretty bad job on this topic. He managed to sound certain and convinced on the topic (which seems to be the thing Bush is most convinced about...) but what he actually said really didn't make much sense.

He had 2 key reasons on why China should be involved in the talks: 1) China has an interest in the outcome, and 2), China has influence over N. Korea. His position that starting bilateral talks would kill the multilateral talks is inconsistent with the above 2 factors, though. If China is interested in the outcome, they're not going to walk away from the table just because the US opened an additional line of communication, and if China actually does have any power over NK, they're going to be able to keep NK at the table too.

Either the reasons that we want China involved are untrue (in which case they're probably not being all that useful in the negotiations anyway), or else bilateral talks would exist just fine along side multilateral talks.

Thirdly, Bush did well to criticize Kerry's discounting of our current allies in Iraq.
Click to expand...
I would agree with the Daily Show assessment: POLAND? The best that Bush could come up with to defend his 'coalition' is POLAND? When your second most important ally is Poland, you're in trouble.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='elprincipe']Bush scored big points on using Kerry's own statements against him, saying he has basically described himself as unfit for command in past statements given his current positions.[/quote]
Bush did a OK job on this topic, but he didn't manage to push it nearly as hard as he could/should have. It was the beginning of a good attack, but one that wound up faltering before it could do any real damage.[/quote]

Disagree, I think it did do damage. He also took advantage of a couple of other Kerry mistakes that played into his hands, such as Kerry describing needing the U.S. to pass some sort of "global test" to take preventive action to defend ourselves. Most Americans just don't agree with that, and it fit right into Bush's portrayal of Kerry as someone who will need permission from the U.N. or abroad before taking action to defend the country.

[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='elprincipe']Also Bush dominated on North Korea, where Kerry seemed to make up "facts" while Bush pressed strongly and persuasively that we need to have China, the country with the most influence over North Korea, with us in the negotiations.[/quote]
Actually, I thought Bush did a pretty bad job on this topic. He managed to sound certain and convinced on the topic (which seems to be the thing Bush is most convinced about...) but what he actually said really didn't make much sense.

He had 2 key reasons on why China should be involved in the talks: 1) China has an interest in the outcome, and 2), China has influence over N. Korea. His position that starting bilateral talks would kill the multilateral talks is inconsistent with the above 2 factors, though. If China is interested in the outcome, they're not going to walk away from the table just because the US opened an additional line of communication, and if China actually does have any power over NK, they're going to be able to keep NK at the table too.

Either the reasons that we want China involved are untrue (in which case they're probably not being all that useful in the negotiations anyway), or else bilateral talks would exist just fine along side multilateral talks.[/quote]

Well, I certainly think Bush could have done a better job. He failed to note Kerry's factual mistakes on the subject, except regarding highly enriched uranium. However, he was effective with the China thing because it was a coup to get China to participate at all. They pretty much were going to leave it to us, but Bush's insistence got them to the table. China has direct influence over NK considering they supply them with energy as well as other things, so they have direct ways of forcing NK's hand, not to mention their historical ties. NK has a history of cheating us, but Bush feels that they won't be so quick to cheat China. I thought that was an effective argument for his policy.

[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='elprincipe']Thirdly, Bush did well to criticize Kerry's discounting of our current allies in Iraq.[/quote]
I would agree with the Daily Show assessment: POLAND? The best that Bush could come up with to defend his 'coalition' is POLAND? When your second most important ally is Poland, you're in trouble.[/quote]

That's all fine and good and fair enough, but the reason it was effective is that Bush was able to point out the inconsistencies in Kerry's Iraq stance this way. Kerry says he wants to attract more allies, but he dismisses the ones we do have out of hand. This is the guy who is going to be a better diplomat, the one who discounts the contributions people helping us now? I thought that was a good point.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']... but he dismisses the ones we do have out of hand. This is the guy who is going to be a better diplomat, the one who discounts the contributions people helping us now? I thought that was a good point.[/quote]

Yeah, but who cares if he disses Poland? What are they going to do, pull out the troops they have in Iraq (all 5 of them)? :twisted:
 
I for one must say that my vote has changed now that I know that Bush was, in fact, our president for the last four years. Statements like these really drove home that important point:

Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America. I wake up every day thinking about how best to protect America. That's my job.
Click to expand...
I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time.
Click to expand...
I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently.
Click to expand...
I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. (This actually is stated twice.)
Click to expand...
I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently.
Click to expand...
I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. (Remember that American media coverage of the war is really an accurate depiction of the hardships of war. Especially for those of us who have never served overseas.)
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand what it means to the commander in chief.
Click to expand...
Note: Parentheticals above are mine

I really loved this response from Bush. (Replace "wrote" with "stated")
[quote name='Kerry']Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, "The enemy attacked us."

Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us.[/quote]
[quote name='Bush']First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.[/quote]
...
What the hell? If you know this to be true, what is the link between the two?

Finally, am I the only person who sees a slight contradiction in these consecutive statements coming from the candidate who promises to further cut taxes (mostly for the rich, of course)?
I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap. Anyway, that's for another debate.

My administration has tripled the amount of money we're spending on homeland security to $30 billion a year.
Click to expand...
OK. So, Kerry's money will come from taxes. Where will Bush's money for increasing spending on these programs come from?

To be totally fair, Bush shouldn't look any more like an ass than the last four years have made him out to be. What more do you need when we're enduring possible repeal of the estate tax or "death" tax, which taxes enormous inheritences, Osama bin Ladin has not been found, we're attempting to amend the Constitution to deny rights to a group of people, and we're attacking a country under the pretense of ties to terrorism then WMD, both of which are false? We are moving closer and closer to a state-enforced religion, and, in the process, are alienating our own population with our attempts to integrate religion into the state via policy at home all the while alienating others abroad with our reckless foreign policy.

By the way, referring to Kerry's willingness to re-evaluate his position and approach on issues as "flip-flopping" is fundamentally the same as characterizing Bush's "resolve" as stubbornness. The American people won't actually fall for this rhetoric regardless of how many times it is repeated.
 
[quote name='campbelld']By the way, referring to Kerry's willingness to re-evaluate his position and approach on issues as "flip-flopping" is fundamentally the same as characterizing Bush's "resolve" as stubbornness. The American people won't actually fall for this rhetoric regardless of how many times it is repeated.[/quote]

We all know that what the American people really want is a steadfast and unyielding leader that is willing to compromise and bend over backwards. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top