Mikelly Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 PhAtty, You hit on something that I think SHOULD concern us all with Kerry... He has this big plan to finish the war in Iraq, and get "Europe on Board", and if he is so scary smart, then explain WHY he sat on his hands while the slipboat attacks raged on for 4 weeks... And if he loses, does that mean his little secret of getting the job done over there goes by the wayside? These are serious questions the hardcore independants need to ask themselves... I know I am... Bush is not the most intelligent speaker, mainly because he is passionate about what he is doing. He speaks with to much emotion, and Kerry to little. Because of that reason alone, he comes off as a dummy, and Kerry the high brow liberal that he is. Lets face it boys and girls... Those who have made up their minds, these debates mean nothing to them... The few who are undecided are what these debates are about, and as John C. mentioned, the questions are all scripted and feel good... the next two will get uglier, but I'm not watching... My mind is made up... We're doomed. "The sky is fallin', the sky is fallin'" Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustAFantaZ Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I think as the debate wore on, the President showed that he was wearing out. Talking alot can do that to a person I hear. Anyways, his exhausted appearance did not change the clarity of his message any. Hanoi John is obviously a flip-flopping hypocrite and all you need to do is let him speak...it shows. The President seemed to tire himself out merely trying to show people John boy's hypocrisy, like we didn't know and needed to be convinced again. This was unnecessary. All he had to do was state it calmly. He didn't have emphase it with emotion or frustration. All in all, I gained these new insights. Hanoi John is for a multinational coalition to handle Iraq but he is against the coalition that currently exists, and he is against a multinational coalition for N. Korea. Hanoi John Heinz is against the use of force in Iraq, but he is for the use of military force in virtually every other nation that is considered a threat but which we have not yet attacked. Hanoi John will say anything, even if it is a lie or just made up, in trying to beat Bush. He has no real convictions or a plan to win the war or the peace for that matter. He's just blowing out hot air and words are not really that important to him. These observations are based on what Hanoi John said at the debate only! They do not necessarily apply to his previous or future "stances" on the issues as those remain subject to change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted October 2, 2004 Author Share Posted October 2, 2004 Those who have made up their minds, these debates mean nothing to them... I don't know Mike, I watch the news, read news online all day long, and I hadn't seen a single bit of John Kerry that did anything other than infuriate me. The worst was the Democratic debates where he told Lieberman that he couldn't have an opinion on the war because he had never been to war. I started yelling at the TV at that point, which is something I don't usually do. But I thought Kerry was good in the debate, and wasn't so much of a creep. Also, I think the reason that I thought the debate was a tie was because I was looking at what they were saying, not just who had the better stage presence. I mean Bush is not an actor, period, and he did repeat himself a lot. "It's a tough job..." Kerry obviously has a better stage presence. But when he says (very powerfully) that he's gonna get Europe to commit troops to Iraq, I'm not giving him a point for that because I still realize that it's BS. I can honestly say watching the debate was worth it to me, and I'll watch the next 2 as well, even though I really don't think it's gonna change my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil1934 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Non event. Since Americans have the attention span of a four year old, the point of this type of, not debate, but mini-speeches, was for someone to generate a good sound bite, and it didn't happen, something like "I knew Jack Kennedy...and you're no...". Tuesday should be fun. I just hope someone pats down Cheney for weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay1970Z Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I want to know how Kerry plans to get Europe on board when all he does is call the current coalition "the coerced and bribed". Also, one thing I really hate is how Kerry keeps saying that he'd do anything to protect America...as long as it is alright with Europe. Thats one of the points that I think Bush needs to hammer, if the U.S. feels threatened, the U.S. doesn't need to seek Europe's permission to take care of business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 To check your facts on what was said by both sides: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=271 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportZ2 Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Both did exactly what I expected. But no one has mentioned the biggest blunders from either one. Kerry: Anything that the US would do in the future that impacts the world but is for our own security would have to pass a global test. Do you guys really beleive thats the right thing to do. Hell no. Did you notice how Kerry started to stumble when he realized what he was saying and couldn't back out of it. Bush: After Kerry said that his number one issue if he was in the white house would be nuclear proliferation. Wrong answer. And Bush turns around and says the same thing except adds terrorist to the end of it. Wrong answer as well and looked like a goof saying it. The only thing more ennoying than the debate itself was watching some of the spin afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSamo Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 *embraces for flaming* I'm with heavy on this one.. I think that John Kerry won that one by a landslide. Also... Anyone who still uses the term "flip-flop" after watching the debate, shouldn't do much talking about how Kerry is "flip-floping". That term was deriberatly(sp?) addressed in the debate... So therefore people who still use that term are only using it because they are either completely republican with GWB's views... or just can't come up with anything else to get at Kerry about. Just my .02 (Not very known on this board....Hello guys ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zdmz Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 "win", "lose" or "draw" the debates dont mean anything to 99% of the voting population. Everyone already has their minds made up and the debates will do little to change those opinions. Media spin will have more of an impact than the actual debates will. Neither candidate is wonderful......Is one of them better suited to be president??? I see it more as 'One of them will be worse for our country'. Kind of a lesser of two evils approach. We hear the same things every day - Bush is a liar, Kerry is a flip-flopper and on and on. IMO the best way to decide is by gut feeling. When either one of them speeks what do you feel. I am voting for the one that fills me with less dread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 I'll re-iterate my prediction from much earlier this year: John Kerry will lose the election big and be thought of in the same league as Walter Mondale and Micheal Dukakis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheelman Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Hey GreenSamo, If Kerry isn't a flip-flopper then how come he kept repeating "The war in Iraq is a mistake." and then when asked point blank during the debate if he thought our soldiers were dieing for a mistake answered "No". Either it's a mistake or not, can't have it both ways. Thats just one example from the debate itself where he contradicted himself!!! ZDMZ, Dude, Do a little research on what these guys stand for. Basing important decisions like this on emotions (gut feeling) is how we elect such goobbers as Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein and Slick Willy himself. We all need to take our right and responsibility of voting seriously and make sure we know who and what we're voting for. We have the ability to affect our government and the responsibility to each other to make sure we do the best we can. As I said before I thought the "debate" was pathetic. I wanted some real answers to important questions and all I saw was political maneuvering from Bush and self contradiction and BS from Kerry. Pathetic, just Pathetic. Maybe I'm just expecting to much from our elected leaders. Unfortunately I do think these debates are watched and can make a difference in peoples minds, especially those that haven't totally decided. Wheelman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustAFantaZ Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20041003/pl_nm/nuclear_iran_kerry_dc Iran Rebuffs Kerry Nuclear Proposal Sun Oct 3, 9:43 AM ET Politics - Reuters TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday rebuffed a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry who has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability. Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be "irrational" for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad. "We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others," Asefi told a weekly news conference. Washington says Iran plans to use its nuclear facilities to make atom bombs. Tehran says it merely wants to generate electricity from nuclear power. President Bush wants Iran referred to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear program. But Kerry says he would put Iran's intentions to the test by agreeing to supply it with nuclear fuel for its power reactors provided Tehran stopped efforts to make its own fuel and returned the spent fuel after use. Iran has rejected repeated efforts by European countries to get it to scrap its nuclear fuel-cycle activities -- which could be used to make atomic bombs. Asefi said Iran could not trust any deal from the West to supply it with reactor fuel. "What guarantees are there? Will they supply us one day and then, if they want to, stop supplying us on another day?" he said. U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, in comments published in Germany's Welt am Sonntag newspaper on Sunday, stressed the Bush administration's tough line on Iran. "We are not considering any military intervention at the moment. But our position is that we should not exclude any option from the start. Iran must understand that our policy red line is the acquisition of nuclear weapons," he said. "The most important thing at the moment is to get Iran on to the agenda of the U.N. Security Council to demonstrate that the international community won't accept it acquiring nuclear status," he added. =========================================== Oops! There goes one Kerry debate point out the window. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Hey GreenSamo' date='If Kerry isn't a flip-flopper then how come he kept repeating "The war in Iraq is a mistake." and then when asked point blank during the debate if he thought our soldiers were dieing for a mistake answered "No". Either it's a mistake or not, can't have it both ways. Thats just one example from the debate itself where he contradicted himself!!! ZDMZ, Dude, Do a little research on what these guys stand for. Basing important decisions like this on emotions (gut feeling) is how we elect such goobbers as Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein and Slick Willy himself. We all need to take our right and responsibility of voting seriously and make sure we know who and what we're voting for. We have the ability to affect our government and the responsibility to each other to make sure we do the best we can. As I said before I thought the "debate" was pathetic. I wanted some real answers to important questions and all I saw was political maneuvering from Bush and self contradiction and BS from Kerry. Pathetic, just Pathetic. Maybe I'm just expecting to much from our elected leaders. Unfortunately I do think these debates are watched and can make a difference in peoples minds, especially those that haven't totally decided. Wheelman[/quote'] I'll try to say this so its understandable. Its difficult to make it come out rightI think what Kerry is trying to say is that going to war was a mistake, but the freedom of the Iraqi people and the fall of Saddam is not. I just want to see how Kerry does in the domestic debate. Honestly, I'm not really clear on either candidates domestics positions. I think there should be Green party and Libertarian candidates added into the debates to get more intelligent and interesting ideas. I'll say it now and say it again, to get quality people into politics, the way the system works needs to change. Instant run-off voting, corporate campaign contribution limitations, free time on public television and radio, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 And John Kerry thinks we need France as our ally? http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,14058,1318972,00.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1291280,00.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/02/international/middleeast/02food.html http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29325.htm Add to this the recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies." When is he going to wake up and realize our interests are NOT the interests of France? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheelman Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Moridin, What He's trying to say shouldn't need interpretation, he should just say it. I heard him say the war was a mistake, pretty tough to re-interpret that, then that the soldiers were not dieing for a mistake, pretty hard to interpret that as something else also. What it boils down to is that he wants to have it both ways because he has no convictions of his own. Can't say the war was justified and had to be done cause then he'll lose the "anti-war" vote and can't say people are dieing for a mistake because then he'll lose everybody else, definition: flip-flopping spineless goobber!!! If he has any real convictions about anything I have yet to hear them. All I've heard so far is how Bush is wrong and his plans (whatever they are) are so much better. If he would answer a stinking question with a real answer I might change my opinion of him but I'm not gonna hold my breath for that. My guess is he won't tell us what his real plans are unless he's elected because it would scare the hell out all thinking Americans and he would lose for sure. Wheelman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zdmz Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Wheelman, It is exactly those "goobers" that fill me with dread. The problem is that the other side of the isle does not provide much comfort. We are still dealing with the lesser of two evils. My decisions are not based on just my gut feelings. I also look at issues and have some strong opinions about them, but the words from candidates cannot be trusted. ( they also do not have much control of all those issues that they talk about - Presidents have far less control for things than they get blamed for) Just look at Kerry when he speaks and you can see, and feel from him, that he does not have a clue. The words coming out of both sides of his mouth dont help him any but even without the words he is in over his head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 While this is the worst example (for Kerry anyway) I've seen so far, it appears that all of the electoral college pre-election polls/surveys show Kerry losing the election: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107683/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Some unusual trends in voting patterns that no one wants to talk about: http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/718pvwny.asp?pg=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Things get even darker for poor John Kerry: http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/index.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I guess if any of us had cameras around us 24/7 there would be dozens of embarassing shots. Maybe we should get back to when the press (and us citizens) showed a little respect and deference to our elected leaders. But, those football shot of JFK are pretty funny, especially the "hike." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.