So what did you guys think?
Vote kerry! He's like bush, but taller!
I thought it went fairly well for both candidates, screwup-wise. Nothing major.
I thought Bush didn't emphasize Kerry's vote on that 87-billion-dollar troop expenditure package enough, even after Kerry whined about troops not being properly equipped.
Kerry brought up the Vietnam war twice. Bush once, in praise. Democrats lead, 2-1. Vietnam needs to be dropped immediately.
All in all, a very interesting debate. Senator Kerry is indeed a strong debater, although in his haste to defend his ideals he contradicted himself on Saddam Hussein and yet again failed to properly clarify his positions: "I have a plan for Iraq"; what plan, Senator? "I would have done things better"; how would you have done things differently, Senator?
My stances on Kerry and Bush were both reinforced. Kerry is well-spoken, but changes his mind on core issues and can't support his elaborate plans. Bush isn't the best public speaker, but he makes up his mind and then speaks it with admirable simplicity.
I feel I know Kerry's posistion a little better now.
I felt that Kerry definitly won the debate, it seemed as if Bush was on the defensive from the get go, then he became very anxious and was angry at times.. Which surprised me a bit because this is supposed to be Bush's subject... Kerry did what he needed to do, went out there and started attacking and hammering away at Bush. He was calm and i think did a good job of trying to help americans understand his position better.
It wasn't a debate; it was a joint press conference. The canidates couldn't ask eachother questions, and they knew the questions ahead of time. It was completely scripted.
If you wanted to see an actual debate, you would have watched the debate between David Cobb (Green) and Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) which happened earlier. They fielded questions from the audience as well as eahcother, and will respond (tomorrow?) to points raised by Kerry/Bush during their "debate."
IMO, all the Kerry/Bush debate was good for was the Presidental Debate drinking game (http://www.wonkette.com/archives/debate-drinking-game-and-not-drinking-game-022235.php).
If you missed the Cobb/Badnarik debate, their VP Debate is tomorrow (LaMarch/Campagna).
Quote from: K on October 01, 2004, 04:11 AM
It wasn't a debate; it was a joint press conference. The canidates couldn't ask eachother questions, and they knew the questions ahead of time. It was completely scripted.
I'd love to see Bush trying to get through a debate where his answers weren't prepared.
Quote from: iago on October 01, 2004, 07:27 AM
Quote from: K on October 01, 2004, 04:11 AM
It wasn't a debate; it was a joint press conference. The canidates couldn't ask eachother questions, and they knew the questions ahead of time. It was completely scripted.
I'd love to see Bush trying to get through a debate where his answers weren't prepared.
Both of them had speaking points prepared. I'm pretty sick of your nonsense thinking that Bush is the only one that practices. Kerry has people write his speeches, Kerry has people help is campaign, it's
not only Bush as you seem to think. You can tell when Bush is trying to recite something memorized as that's when he stumbles on stuff - not when he speaks naturally. You didn't even watch the debate, iago, I don't see how you can comment on it without having a previously biased opinion. I'm certainly biased, but I've given Kerry lots of credit. His debate record is inferior to Bush's, even Gore warned Kerry that'd it would be tough - but he performed well. Kerry was vague on his plans, as Stealth mentioned. Kerry made grammatical errors, Bush made one - but he took longer thinking pauses. Bush certainly didn't attack Kerry enough about his vote against the 87billion funding legislation, which I think was an error on Bush's part. But, overall, I think it was a tie.
Bush is not as good at thinking on his feet. I feel that Kerry won the debate. He was bsing all over the place but it came off very smoothly. Bush came off as being very firm, I felt he sounded more truthful when he spoke, but Kerry just really seemed to do the better job. He was writing (flowing) on that little paper of his all over the place and going after bush on tons of stuff. That's how I saw it. I think bush should have gone after Kerry big time when Kerry said Bush did not supply the munitions to the troops, and really kill kerry on that 87 billion dollar thing. At one point Kerry said he has never waivered. I wish bush would have hit him with more examples then wrong war wrong place wrong time, because there were several others in the homeland security dept.
another thing I wish bush went after Kerry on is when Kerry said (several times) that he will hunt the terrorists down wherever and kill them. But somehow there are no terrorists in iraq? Thats why we have proof of saddam paying that families of palestinian suicide bombers and we have found terrorist camps in iraq (that major one just south of baghdad for example). He also said he would do what is best for Israel one time, how is not going into Iraq a good thing for Israel, especially when Iraq is sponsoring the terrorism going on in their country?
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 01, 2004, 02:48 PM
Quote from: iago on October 01, 2004, 07:27 AM
Quote from: K on October 01, 2004, 04:11 AM
It wasn't a debate; it was a joint press conference. The canidates couldn't ask eachother questions, and they knew the questions ahead of time. It was completely scripted.
I'd love to see Bush trying to get through a debate where his answers weren't prepared.
Both of them had speaking points prepared. I'm pretty sick of your nonsense thinking that Bush is the only one that practices. Kerry has people write his speeches, Kerry has people help is campaign, it's not only Bush as you seem to think. You can tell when Bush is trying to recite something memorized as that's when he stumbles on stuff - not when he speaks naturally. You didn't even watch the debate, iago, I don't see how you can comment on it without having a previously biased opinion. I'm certainly biased, but I've given Kerry lots of credit. His debate record is inferior to Bush's, even Gore warned Kerry that'd it would be tough - but he performed well. Kerry was vague on his plans, as Stealth mentioned. Kerry made grammatical errors, Bush made one - but he took longer thinking pauses. Bush certainly didn't attack Kerry enough about his vote against the 87billion funding legislation, which I think was an error on Bush's part. But, overall, I think it was a tie.
I didn't watch the debate, nor did I comment on it. I commented on Bush's skills.
All I know that Bush is lousy at thinking on his feet, so an unprepared debate would be interesting.
<edit> Also, I know I have said on many occasions that "they are both morons". :)
If you weren't commenting on the debate, why were you posting in a topic that was labeled for discussion of the debate?
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 01, 2004, 04:28 PM
If you weren't commenting on the debate, why were you posting in a topic that was labeled for discussion of the debate?
Because his country is free, too. Maybe you'd like to invade Canada and shut him up?
Quote from: Soul Taker on October 01, 2004, 04:42 PMQuote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 01, 2004, 04:28 PMIf you weren't commenting on the debate, why were you posting in a topic that was labeled for discussion of the debate?
Because his country is free, too. Maybe you'd like to invade Canada and shut him up?
There's nothing in Canada to make it worth the trouble. On top of that, it's infested with Canadians.
Quote from: Kp on October 01, 2004, 05:06 PM
Quote from: Soul Taker on October 01, 2004, 04:42 PMQuote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 01, 2004, 04:28 PMIf you weren't commenting on the debate, why were you posting in a topic that was labeled for discussion of the debate?
Because his country is free, too. Maybe you'd like to invade Canada and shut him up?
There's nothing in Canada to make it worth the trouble. On top of that, it's infested with Canadians.
I totally agree. We aren't worth it with the whining and what not.
Trust -- I was posting about debates in general, in response to what somebody said on a thread about the debate.
How come you targeted Bush, even though you're against Both? They both have their strong points, and flaws, when it comes to public speaking.
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 01, 2004, 05:35 PM
How come you targeted Bush, even though you're against Both? They both have their strong points, and flaws, when it comes to public speaking.
Because it gets a better snap response from some people, probably ;)
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 01, 2004, 05:35 PM
How come you targeted Bush, even though you're against Both? They both have their strong points, and flaws, when it comes to public speaking.
Because when somebody mentioned that the debates were prepared, I remembered how bad Bush is at talking on the spot. I've seen press conferences with him, and when somebody asks him a questions he doesn't have prepared, he has big problems.
On the other hand, I know nothing about Kerry. I've only seem him speak a couple times. I can't talk about him without being ignorant.
So who are you guys voting for? I know Trust is for Bush.
take a whild guess on who I am voting for :P
I'm a Bush supporter, stronger still after this debate.
One thing is for sure: Kerry did everything he needed to do. Had he messed this debate up, it would have spelled the end of his campaign. Now things are going to get competitive. Oh well, more fun!
We [three of my friends, Communist, Socialist and moderate respectively] were drawing imaginary notecards from each candidate during English class today. They're hilarious, I'll get them on the Fun Forum if I get them scanned.
I wonder who arta is voting for :D
Quote from: iago on October 01, 2004, 05:45 PM
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 01, 2004, 05:35 PM
How come you targeted Bush, even though you're against Both? They both have their strong points, and flaws, when it comes to public speaking.
Because when somebody mentioned that the debates were prepared, I remembered how bad Bush is at talking on the spot. I've seen press conferences with him, and when somebody asks him a questions he doesn't have prepared, he has big problems.
On the other hand, I know nothing about Kerry. I've only seem him speak a couple times. I can't talk about him without being ignorant.
There's been plenty of interviews where Bush has acted normal, even when it wasn't scripted mind you. In fact, he messes up more when it's planned. On the O'Reilly (sp?) Factor, Bush was as articulate as can be - he had no pressure, he wasn't trying to recite memorized things, he was normal.
No offense, but I think you sound ignorant either way. If all my posts were one way, I'd sound even more ignorant than I already do. I have no problem complimenting Kerry, as I don't hate him - I just disagree with a vast majority of his views
QuoteSo who are you guys voting for? I know Trust is for Bush.
I can't vote.
QuoteI wonder who arta is voting for
Arta can't vote either. :P
Quote from: Falcon[anti-yL] on October 01, 2004, 06:31 PM
So who are you guys voting for? I know Trust is for Bush.
David Cobb.
Quote from: Stealth on October 01, 2004, 07:06 PM
[three of my friends, Communist, Socialist and moderate respectively]
So 2 dems and a republican?
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 01, 2004, 07:05 PM
take a whild guess on who I am voting for :P
You're voting for your sig. ;D
I want Kerry to explain the big dig scandal that took place under his watch.
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 01, 2004, 07:10 PM
Quote from: iago on October 01, 2004, 05:45 PM
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 01, 2004, 05:35 PM
How come you targeted Bush, even though you're against Both? They both have their strong points, and flaws, when it comes to public speaking.
Because when somebody mentioned that the debates were prepared, I remembered how bad Bush is at talking on the spot. I've seen press conferences with him, and when somebody asks him a questions he doesn't have prepared, he has big problems.
On the other hand, I know nothing about Kerry. I've only seem him speak a couple times. I can't talk about him without being ignorant.
There's been plenty of interviews where Bush has acted normal, even when it wasn't scripted mind you. In fact, he messes up more when it's planned. On the O'Reilly (sp?) Factor, Bush was as articulate as can be - he had no pressure, he wasn't trying to recite memorized things, he was normal.
No offense, but I think you sound ignorant either way. If all my posts were one way, I'd sound even more ignorant than I already do. I have no problem complimenting Kerry, as I don't hate him - I just disagree with a vast majority of his views
I've seen Bush talk a lot, and mess up a lot. And I saw him almost get assassinated by a pretzal. And I don't say that against bush, I just love referring to that as an "assassination attempt". Let's all laugh about that.
But seriously, Bush scares me for a lot of reasons. And I don't feel like going into them right here and right now, so I won't. I think it's time for me to drink some orange juice and continue not caring about American politics.
PS: Both candidates suck! :(
I think this debate solidified what Kerry is all about, nothing. Senator Kerry did nothing out of what he's been doing since before the primaries, blaming one man, President Bush, for all of the United States' problems. I was unimpressed by both candidates, and despise the fact that Kerry is still mudslinging. All I saw was what I saw in 2000, a more affluent Democrat trying to confuse GWB. Bush once again reminded me of Reagan in his end of the debate.
Anyone who thinks Bush is articulate is just in denial. Sorry to break it to you.
I also thought Kerry did rather a lot of bashing, but then i thought.. well.. isn't that the point? He's trying to beat bush. Kerry's supposed to be saying that he'd be better. That's the whole point.
I thought Kerry came out on top in the debate, but Bush didn't come off nearly as badly as I thought he would. I'll be interested to see the next 2. It's also unfair to say that Kerry was the only one mudslinging - Bush was equally as guilty of that.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 03, 2004, 05:41 PM
Anyone who thinks Bush is articulate is just in denial. Sorry to break it to you.
I also thought Kerry did rather a lot of bashing, but then i thought.. well.. isn't that the point? He's trying to beat bush. Kerry's supposed to be saying that he'd be better. That's the whole point.
I thought Kerry came out on top in the debate, but Bush didn't come off nearly as badly as I thought he would. I'll be interested to see the next 2. It's also unfair to say that Kerry was the only one mudslinging - Bush was equally as guilty of that.
Everybody knows Bush is not an articulat and eloquent speaker, and nobody, not even Bush, denies it.
Arta, a Presidential candidate that just bashes the other is an idiot. Kerry hasn't really said anything other than "Bush is bad." He hasn't offered any intriguing solutions to the problem except the same old think that Democrats have done over and over for decades, and that obviously isn't the solution.
Arta, my point was that Kerry has been mudslinging since the primaries. He hasn't offered any solutions, only pointed out problems. All Kerry did the entire debate was Iraq this and North Korea that, but didn't say anything about his plan, that he claims to have, to solve the problem.
Well let's see. I was very confused, I started off the debate being a Kerry fan for sure. But after the debate I'm not sure who I want.
Kerry's points came across as opposite of what bush wanted, yet, he had no stance.
While Bush, a horrible public speaker I might add. I don't agree with his stance on practically anything, so I'm probably going to go Nadar.
(http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/naderforpresidentapphotocredit.jpg)
voting for a third party is considered by some to be throwing away a vote though.
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 03, 2004, 07:08 PM
voting for a third party is considered by some to be throwing away a vote though.
Those people are called 'stupid'.
Or we could just do what 70% of the population (correctly) does,
DON'T VOTE!
I'm 100% against voting.
$t0rm although that seems like a good idea, but if those 70% of the population voted for nader we would all be happy.
Quote from: SNiFFeR on October 03, 2004, 09:35 PM
$t0rm although that seems like a good idea, but if those 70% of the population voted for nader we would all be happy.
I wouldn't. I am a bit of a fiscal libertarian, but even if Badnarik were to be elected I would not be happy. He is a goof ball on everything else (from what I have seen. On many issues the libertarian stance seems to be just... strange). I have not seen a single third party candidate this year that I liked.
Quote from: SNiFFeR on October 03, 2004, 09:35 PM
$t0rm although that seems like a good idea, but if those 70% of the population voted for nader we would all be happy.
But that won't happen, Nader has less than 1% in the polls. It's impossible for a third party to win due to the winner-take-all system we have.
I do agree that it's throwing your vote away to not vote for somebody that could win, or to not vote at all. If you don't vote - you shouldn't have the right to complain about government imo.
Oh yea, Nader isn't even on the Virginian ticket.
But in that aspect if you always vote for one of the two main parties because you think that's the only way you are going to vote for the winner then you are stunting the democracy of the whole thing by making it stay a two party system. But whatever I think it's just said that a country so advanced can't produce a real leader. We've got a trigger-happy guy who can't complete a sentance on his own and a guy who can't make a solid decision because he's scared of what half the people think.
The only time our country has not been divided into two parties was during the era of good feelings, and that was because we only had one party at that point. Because you need a majority to win an election without the decision going before the legislature our system will only favor two parties. The only roll a third party plays in the election is by taking up a very small percent of the votes making it harder a tad harder for either major party to get a majority. Nader just barely got on the ballot on Florida, he will not get a single electoral vote out of our state. If they guy is not getting any electoral votes it really is kind of pointless to vote for him.
Quote from: muert0 on October 04, 2004, 11:09 AM
But in that aspect if you always vote for one of the two main parties because you think that's the only way you are going to vote for the winner then you are stunting the democracy of the whole thing by making it stay a two party system. But whatever I think it's just said that a country so advanced can't produce a real leader. We've got a trigger-happy guy who can't complete a sentance on his own and a guy who can't make a solid decision because he's scared of what half the people think.
Thats why I should be president, because I don't care what people think.
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 04, 2004, 03:23 PM
If they guy is not getting any electoral votes it really is kind of pointless to vote for him.
No it isn't. If a third party gets 5% of the popular vote (not too unlikely--it's happend before), their party is automatically on the ballot the next year, and it gives them access to public funding or something like that.
Kerry did offer solutions. He wants bilateral talks with N. Korea. He wants to earn back the US's reputation in the rest of the world (which is in *tatters*), by listening to other countries and being diplomatic, and becoming involved with international efforts to make the world a better place. In his words, 'statesmanship'. He wants to impose a moritorium on executions. These are substantive actions. Bush also talked about actions. Both bashed eachother, as they should have done, and both offered solutions, as they should have done. The question is, who do you agree with?
Everyone should stop talking about mudslinging, bashing, and all this bollocks. It's *designed* to stop you from looking at what really counts: who's more qualified? Who's more a experienced person? Who's got the best record, over their lifetime, according to your worldview? Who'd be a better president? Both of them have good points. I just agree with more of Kerry's.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 04, 2004, 04:26 PMWho's more a experienced person?
Well, Bush has served as President through September 11th, and a war which even if you disagree on whether or not we should be there, nearly everyone agrees is being handled correctly strategically. He is clearly a strong, capable, moral
leader, something which I believe John Kerry can never be.
QuoteWho's got the best record, over their lifetime, according to your worldview?
While our worldviews differ, I'm sure, Kerry's record over his 20 years in the Senate is not very remarkable at all. He's simply another liberal career politician saying whatever he can to get elected.
Quote from: Stealth on October 04, 2004, 05:58 PM
Well, Bush has served as President through September 11th, and a war which even if you disagree on whether or not we should be there, nearly everyone agrees is being handled correctly strategically. He is clearly a strong, capable, moral leader, something which I believe John Kerry can never be.
But to whos morals? Everyone has different morals, different beliefs. So people believe what he did was immoral, so it's all on perception and interpretation. I believe what Arta said.
"Strong, capable" and "leader" still stand...
Strong? At what? The only "strength" I have ever seen in Bush is his persistence in sticking to his convictions, which, while not a fault in itself becomes largely bothersome in the face of REASON. The man all but said he leads by faith alone during the debates.
Capable? Capable of making us the most hated country on earth, maybe. Capable of getting things done? Of course not, which is why we're still in Iraq and still searching for bin Laden. Although I guess he was capable of usurping some Middle Eastern oil fields. That's always good.
Leader? He "led" us into a war that we should not be involved in. He "led" us out of September 11th with propoganda that ultimately ended up passing what is possibly the worst violation of civil rights this country has ever seen the government impose, which was so unconsitutional we're thankfully starting to repeal it.
So yeah, I guess that does make him a "strong, capable ... leader".
Quote from: Hitmen on October 04, 2004, 03:35 PM
Quote from: peofeoknight on October 04, 2004, 03:23 PM
If they guy is not getting any electoral votes it really is kind of pointless to vote for him.
No it isn't. If a third party gets 5% of the popular vote (not too unlikely--it's happend before), their party is automatically on the ballot the next year, and it gives them access to public funding or something like that.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. That happened with nader back in the day....
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 04, 2004, 04:26 PM
Kerry did offer solutions. He wants bilateral talks with N. Korea. He wants to earn back the US's reputation in the rest of the world (which is in *tatters*), by listening to other countries and being diplomatic, and becoming involved with international efforts to make the world a better place. In his words, 'statesmanship'.
He is on the path to winning respect by calling our allies jokes basically. I love how he acts like we went into the war alone, when we went in with spain, england, australia, poland, etc.
QuoteWho's got the best record, over their lifetime, according to your worldview? Who'd be a better president? Both of them have good points. I just agree with more of Kerry's.
I persoanlly do not like Kerry's track record. His voting record is disturbing.
Quote from: SNiFFeR on October 04, 2004, 07:15 PM
Quote from: Stealth on October 04, 2004, 05:58 PM
Well, Bush has served as President through September 11th, and a war which even if you disagree on whether or not we should be there, nearly everyone agrees is being handled correctly strategically. He is clearly a strong, capable, moral leader, something which I believe John Kerry can never be.
But to whos morals? Everyone has different morals, different beliefs. So people believe what he did was immoral, so it's all on perception and interpretation. I believe what Arta said.
Bush is moral to everyone but the Amish because he wears buttons on his clothing :P.
This coalition of the willing stuff is such nonsense. The US has more troops in Iraq than all the other coalition members put together. The only other country to have troops in iraq in significant numbers is the UK, and even we have only 8,000 or so, compared to 290,000 US troops (or something of that order). This is an American war with some 'allies' (with practically no power to influence strategy or policy) thrown in for PR purposes.
Quote
He's simply another liberal career politician saying whatever he can to get elected.
Why do people say this? Bush is equally as guilty of that - he said plenty of things during the 2000 campaign that he never did. I can look some up if I really have to but hopefully common sense will prevail and I'll be spared the task. For that matter, Why is Kerry 'simply another liberal' while Bush, apparently, is not 'simply another conservative'?
What differentiates between a candidate who is saying what they believe, and a candidate who is saying whatever they think will appeal to most people? Besides which, isn't it the job of a selfless polititian to represent the wishes of the people in his constituency, rather than furthering own? Thus, isn't it better to do what most people want?
I'd be
very surprised if anyone here started the campaign with an open mind and no preference, and has been persuaded by a candidate to support them. I think the vast majority of people started out either supporting or not supporting Bush, and are sticking to their guns. I am. I freely admit that I want Kerry to win, simply because he is not George W. Bush. I cannot think of a single foreign policy decision Bush has made that I've agreed with.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on October 05, 2004, 04:36 PM
What differentiates between a candidate who is saying what they believe, and a candidate who is saying whatever they think will appeal to most people? Besides which, isn't it the job of a selfless polititian to represent the wishes of the people in his constituency, rather than furthering own? Thus, isn't it better to do what most people want?
No. The job of a
delegate is to represent the wishes of the people in his constituency. The job of a
representative is to govern how he best
believes the people will be expressed. The United States is a
representative government.
Unfortunately, Arta, there is an even split about what people want here in the States. Generally speaking, about half of people are on one side of a diametric issue, although not all are always on the same side.
Isn't it odd, though, that moderate Democrats are supporting Bush? That ought to tell the Kerry campaign something.
Quote
He wants to earn back the US's reputation in the rest of the world (which is in *tatters*), by listening to other countries and being diplomatic, and becoming involved with international efforts to make the world a better place.
Honestly, I don't give a flying fuck about what the world thinks when stuff like Oil for Food exists.
Quote
This coalition of the willing stuff is such nonsense. The US has more troops in Iraq than all the other coalition members put together.
That couldn't possibly be because America commands the largest, most powerful, potent, and effective military in the world, would it? I believe that the United States is, in fact, the majority of the UN's military might. I wouldn't be surprised if the UN's military presence in other regions of the world had the US providing more troops than all the other members put together. Why don't you whip out the facts and prove me wrong, Arta?
Besides, you're not a citizen, are you?
QuoteThe only other country to have troops in iraq in significant numbers is the UK, and even we have only 8,000 or so, compared to 290,000 US troops (or something of that order).
And, according to Kerry, we don't have enough troops there.
Edit: I got to thinking, somebody will probably take my comment the wrong way - so I'll clarify. Yes, I know Kerry didn't make that statement first, Paul Bremer did, I was meaning Kerry supports that conclusion. :)
Your damned if you do damned if you dont. If we have more troops we have too many, less too few. No matter how many we have it is not going to be correct. The democrats are using this like a political football.
No I think what they are saying is we shouldn't be over there at all but if we are over there we should have a few more troops there. And since somebody dug this hole it's a little to deep to just climb out of it in one step.
I didn't get to see all of the debate tonight but from what I saw it looked like edwards kicked the dicks ass. And I like how he pointed out the flip-flops from president Bush and afterwards it seemed like it kind of had Dick at a slight loss for words.
Anyone watch the VP debate?
I beleive Cheney was the obvious winner. A liberal blog I visit often called 'conservative fighter' even crowned him king. Edwards seemed less sure of himself, and more polite than needed. I was studying while watching it and fell asleep before any of the post-debate shows came on. I was real tired. Anyway, Kerry also seemed to have his facts straight. Edwards made some of the same inaccuracies as Kerry did, even after Kerry was corrected on almost every news channel. muert0, Edwards pointed out what? two of the presidents 'flip-flops'? And, just before, he said flip-flopping was good. Now he's criticising the president for it. Anyway, compare the amounts and your point really has no go. Cheney was confident in all of his answers, and despite the one poll I've seen, I think he won.
I agree. I think Cheneye had a decisive victory. I would not call it a land slide, but Cheney had some nice zingers. I love how he went after Edwards on his numbers and his record. That Halliburton stuff was funny because it was so Bogus. I liked the NBC response to it this mourning. NBC even called it crap, I believe this is what one of their reporters said on good mourning America "No bid contract? More like a no one else can bid contract. Halliburton was the only company that could perform the neccessary jobs within the neccessary time frame".
Hmm, It's kinda funny because the only reason we're in war is because of Cheneye, and his oil companies. We all know who the puppet of the nation is...
Quote from: SNiFFeR on October 06, 2004, 04:27 PM
Hmm, It's kinda funny because the only reason we're in war is because of Cheneye, and his oil companies. We all know who the puppet of the nation is...
I'd really love hardcore evidence that that was the governments intention instead of just your liberal opinion crap. You can speculate that that was their reasoning as much as you want, but frankly - nobody has proved it.
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 06, 2004, 04:29 PM
Quote from: SNiFFeR on October 06, 2004, 04:27 PM
Hmm, It's kinda funny because the only reason we're in war is because of Cheneye, and his oil companies. We all know who the puppet of the nation is...
I'd really love hardcore evidence that that was the governments intention instead of just your liberal opinion crap. You can speculate that that was their reasoning as much as you want, but frankly - nobody has proved it.
Not to mention there is not a hint, not a whiff, of it. Its just bs that is circulating by people who use the issues like a political foot ball and want their guy to win. People who will blatantly lie just to see their candidate get into office, never mind the good of the nation.
Quote from: SNiFFeR on October 06, 2004, 04:27 PM
Hmm, It's kinda funny because the only reason we're in war is because of Cheneye, and his oil companies. We all know who the puppet of the nation is...
Thats an opinion, and an ignorant one.
As to last night's Vice President's Debate, I thought it was interesting. I saw in this case, a pretty boy John Edwards with nothing to say against Dick Cheney who was obviously prepared for the situation. It firms up in my mind that Edwards is merely a Kerry puppet.
I loved how Edwards kept referring to Kerry, even in that section where he was not supposed to. He said John Kerry does this, Kerry does that, Kerry eats babies, when he was not supposed to be saying Kerry's name. I thought it was humorous.
I hated how the moderator let Edwards interrupt Cheneye two or three times throughout the course of the debate.