September the 30th, 2004 Presidential Debate

Discussion in 'Serious Chat' started by Glenn, Oct 1, 2004.

  1. #1
    Glenn

    Glenn Super Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,865
    Likes Received:
    0



    What are your opinions on this debate?

    I believe John Kerry did a great job in addressing to the country better promises. John Kerry made many different, but consistent remarks while President Bush stuck to the same principles and said them over and over and over again (eg. "It's hard work to be a soldier in Iraq") John Kerry mostly made the stronger comments while George Bush had to defend himself with promises that he'd do better if reelected. At the beginning, Kerry seemed very nervous and slightly unsure, but for the majority of the debate, he held firm beliefs that overcame what Bush could promise. I'm not prepared to live 4 more years of bullshit and broken promises from George Bush.

    Vote for a stronger America. Vote John Kerry.
     
  2. #2
    Todd

    Todd FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,061,051
    Likes Received:
    99



    Kerry did a wonderful job. Bush, was...Bush. The same chimpanzee looking thing that can't speak worth ####.
     
  3. #3
    Whimsicality

    Whimsicality I broke the dam.

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,788
    Likes Received:
    0



    I think they both made strong debates. Obviously Kerry was more articulate and fine tuned because let's face it, Bush is a sucky debator.

    As far as first impressions go, it surprised me how similar Bush and Kerry were on the Iraq issue. Sure, they each talked their game differently, but when it comes down to it they didn't seem to have a major difference in strategy.

    I don't recall Bush promising to do better if reelected. Bush seemed to firmly believe that he had been doing just fine all along.

    Speaking of Mr. Bush, did anyone notice how he was using what the studiers of propoganda call the "bandwagon technique"? I.e. constantly using the word "we." "We are working together, we will win, we believe..." He tried to get people rallied up by drilling it into their minds that "We are doing something together." He also often complimented the world leaders that have sent troops into Iraq.

    Kerry on the other hand seemed to be working to appear more steadfast, and especially in the beginning of the debate, used "I" a lot. "I will get this country on track. I have outlined a plan." Although I don't believe the phrase "flip-flop" was used once throughout the debate, obviously it's a tag Kerry wants to get rid of.

    I look forward watching the next to debates.


    *watches as the thread turns into yet another pro-Kerry rally*
     
  4. #4
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,861
    Likes Received:
    388



    I was watching the debate and screaming contradictions of what Bush was saying. Every couple of sentences was lies and spins!

    Kerry lay forth a strict policy on which he wants to deal with national security. Bush kept up his anti-Kerry flip-flopping antics up. John Kerry voted for the war in Iraq because Bush told the senate Iraq had WMDs! This was a lie. Of course Kerry was going to believe the president, any normal person would trust his president. But Buh lied. This is why Kerry voted against the $87B, toshow he did not stand for what the president did.
     
  5. #5
    Todd

    Todd FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,061,051
    Likes Received:
    99



    Bush's notepad at the debate:

    [​IMG]
     
  6. #6
    Leslie

    Leslie huh? LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    0



    LOL!!!
     
  7. #7
    Whimsicality

    Whimsicality I broke the dam.

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,788
    Likes Received:
    0



    LOL...

    and another LOL at the stretched forum tables...
     
  8. #8
    Shade

    Shade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2003
    Messages:
    522
    Likes Received:
    3



    :lol: :lol: :lol:
    ...
    ...
    *dies*

    LMFAO

    Ok now seriously...

    Bush clearly stuck to his whole campaign strategy of trying to destroy Kerry's character by making references to his flip-flops and saying that he was being too negative. I thought Kerry was being too passive in the beginning of the debate, he wasn't saying what needed to be said. Mainly, he wasn't defending his 'flip-flops' well enough. FINALLY he got to the point that its better to realize a mistake and try to rectify it than to go blindly forward later on. That needed to be said up front. Not surprisingly, even though Kerry went through that several times, Bush didn't seem to say a whole lot else other than continuing to defame Kerry's character, even though Kerry had finally addressed the issue. Bush still doesn't seem to really have a plan laid out, just like he hasn't all along. I thought Kerry brought good points up, but I don't think he drove them home. He doesn't want to come across as to negative, but he didn't seem to be decisive enough in this debate, which could hurt him. He needs to flush out his plans more, which he did in some areas, but not enough (granted more than Bush). Clearly that's difficult to do, especially under a 2 minute limit, and so maybe I'm just expecting too much.

    EDIT: BTW Todd you need to add "Presidential stuff is tough" or something along those lines since that's all Bush was saying when he wasn't inferring about Kerry's flip-flops
     
  9. #9
    Whimsicality

    Whimsicality I broke the dam.

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,788
    Likes Received:
    0



    I think, in a sense Shade, that's what both canidates were aiming for, although it's obviously open to interpretation.

    Kerry was very reserved, very solid and articulate. Bush reminded me of somebody's uncle watching football. He was more emotional, and like I said above, using the Bandwagon Technique--lots of "We," while Kerry focused on seeming steadfast and consistant, with lots of "I."
     
  10. #10
    Will

    Will bread crumbs & white stones LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2002
    Messages:
    35,486
    Likes Received:
    0



    Kerry owned Bush, period.

    Kerry was far more articulate than Bush. After all, Kerry excels in debating. Bush excels in tearing a country apart. Kerry was also very steadfast, whereas Bush was very propagandic.

    One thing that struck me, though, was the fact that, every time Kerry brought up a subject where "Bush didn't do this" or "Bush didn't do that," Bush always chimed in with something to the effect of "well, we're doing this now" or "we're doing that now."

    Kerry also made his stances on matters clear. He might have changed his mind in the past, but that is the past. That's over with now. The future is tomorrow and every day after that. Focusing on the way he worded things in the past isn't going to change anything. Anything he voted against was passed anyway. Things like that don't matter now. But Bush, on the other hand... things he's done in the past can't be avoided. I agreed with Kerry on everything he said.

    Examples:

    Bush diverted attention from Usama bin Laden to go into Iraq without a just reason. Kerry plainly stated that Bush was only guarding oil <insert word> instead of nuclear facilities. What's that supposed to tell the American people? "We don't care of the country is laid to waste by a nuclear disaster as long as we have the oil"? I mean, come on.

    Bush was very impatient. Instead of waiting legally for the United Nations to approve or disapprove of the action to be taken in Iraq, Bush went ahead and did it anyway, betraying a union of nations that the United States helped set up in the first place. What is that supposed to say to the rest of the world? "Oh, we might have helped start it, but we don't care anymore"? Seriously.

    I do believe that Bush is still an idiot, no matter how many words he copied from <s>Bush</s> Kerry (edit: typo) and used correctly in the debate. Did anyone notice how many times he had to look at the paper for small words? I noticed he did that for "group" and he even did it for the word "I." :lol:
     
  11. #11
    Leslie

    Leslie huh? LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    0



    Personally, I think they both sucked arse. I mean, COME ON. I want to hear about the real issues... Jessica or Ashlee? Britney or Cristina? These are more urgent issues that need to be discussed.

    Okay, seriously... I would have liked to hear what Nader has to say, but no way in hell are they gonna have the green party candidate on there. They both seemed to be saying the same thing to me. But that's just my opinon.
     
  12. #12
    Shade

    Shade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2003
    Messages:
    522
    Likes Received:
    3



    I wish that Kerry, after defending his 'flip-flops' had then gone on to pursue the point that Bush has changed his positions on key issues several times as well. He needed to call him out on that since a great deal of his platform was based on that. (See Bush vs. Bush on the Daily Show if you don't know what I'm talking about here)
     
  13. #13
    goso88

    goso88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0



    Tell me about it. I waited and waited and waited for him to FINALLY defend himself with that.
     
  14. #14
    Derek

    Derek LPAssociation.com Administrator LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    41,874
    Likes Received:
    2,334



    Like my MSN name says "Debate or no debate, my vote stays the same". This whole debate only further made me realize why I hate Kerry so much and the funny thing is that he clearly screwed up when challenging Bush about our own security and fire companies, a comment in which Bush replied that we have spent 1.3 billion dollars to ensure our security gets any better. And throwing whatever claims you will at me, we haven't had an attack since 9/11 so it'd be hard to claim our security isnt doing a good job. If we were failing we'd have several attacks on our soil from Al-Queda since the 9/11 attacks. We haven't so Kerry doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

    More noticable is that after Bush started getting more determined, Kerry kept stuttering and his pauses kept getting longer. While I will admit Bush had his fair share of pauses, I had a hard time being able to trust Kerry when he dodged certain answers and seemed to go on and on without being direct to the point like Bush was. When Bush challenged Kerry about flip-flopping his vote for the 87 Billion dollars, he totally changed the subject and I recall this greatly because all of my Bush supporting friends were b*tching at the tv, wondering why Kerry didn't face the music, but instead tried to turn it against Bush without confronting his own problems.

    I didn't follow Kerry that well because like Shade said he didn't drive his points home as hard as he should of. Bush went for the kill everytime he said something and if Kerry wants to win the debates he has to come out swinging. Kerry seemed way too passive throughout the entire debate, and since Bush was not..naturally my attention went more to Bush and I felt he was a better debater. I am getting registered tommorrow and unless Kerry starts getting to the point and driving those points home, my vote is going to Bush on November 2nd. You can throw your anti-Bush propaganda on me, call me "ill-informed" like you democrats like to do, and even throw your crazy "Bush knocked down the towers" theory at me, but it's up to Kerry to change my vote. As I said earlier, Kerry came off way too passive and dull, and until he attacks hard and makes me want to get up and applaud what he says (like I did once with Bush) my vote is not going to be changed.

    Kerry has two more chances to convince me he's not a flip-flopping liar who doesn't know what he wants with our country. Go ahead and use Michael Moore or your conspiracy theories to try and sway my vote, cause it's not going to work. Until Kerry grabs my attention as much as Bush does, I'm not going to give him my vote.
     
  15. #15
    Will

    Will bread crumbs & white stones LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2002
    Messages:
    35,486
    Likes Received:
    0



    I've talked to three Republicans since the debate ended and saw interviews with four or five Republicans on my local news channels shortly after the debate, and all of them have said that Bush was owned. One guy, plain and simple, said that he's going to vote for Kerry now, just because of how poorly Bush did.

    Also, if you think Bush is a better debater, you should go to school (a college, not a personal attack on you) and join a debate team. You'll see that Bush is one of the worst debaters ever.

    Also, it wasn't really a debate anyway. All of the responses were pre-planned, right down to the retorts.
     
  16. #16
    erasethepain

    erasethepain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2003
    Messages:
    770
    Likes Received:
    0



    If there were attempts made by Al-Queda that were worth mentioning, Bush would be all over them. He would do anything to make sure he wins, and putting them out to the public and how well they have done to protect our countries security would only help him. But you don't see that, because there probably haven't been any major attempts... if any at all.

    Because he's running for president doesn't mean he can't be nervous. Kerry probably just said the numbers wrong, instead of thinking they were the right numbers.

    And what did he say? I didn't watch the debate myself, but I'm reading on it. I'm pretty sure he said the same bullshit we've heard a million times and will continue to hear. You know, Bush could realize a few things if his head wasn't stuck so far up his ass that it's drained him every last desire to admit his faults, among other drainy things...

    Until Kerry's hair moves, I'm not voting for Bush.
     
  17. #17
    Derek

    Derek LPAssociation.com Administrator LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    41,874
    Likes Received:
    2,334



    Approaching this from a different angle and not bashing Kerry like I have, I'm going to say something I told my parents earlier. As much as Kerry bothers me and has a hard time gaining my trust, if he comes out the winner in this election and does a good job as president then I wont have a problem. If he brings peace to the US like he claims he's going to do then I'll be happy.

    However, the reason I'm not too quick to mark "Kerry" on my ballot is because I have a hard time trusting him when he seems to change his mind so much. Despite all the "bad things" people claim Bush has done to this country, in my eyes he hasn't strayed away from his ideas on things and thats what makes me trust him enough to receive my vote. It's the fact that Kerry has seemed to switch views so much that has me uneasy. Like Bush said, we dont need someone like that for president. We don't need someone who cant keep his mind on one thing, we need someone who has an idea and sticks to it. Bush's ideas, as horrible as you Kerry supporters will claim they are, have remained the same during his presidency. He has not changed his views frequently like Kerry has managed to do throughout his career as a Senator.

    Bush just seems to know what he wants, bottom line. With all due respect I cant say that I feel the same way about Kerry when it comes to that issue.
     
  18. #18
    Joe

    Joe I'm tried LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    18,897
    Likes Received:
    918



    One vote to Kerry then.
     
  19. #19
    Will

    Will bread crumbs & white stones LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2002
    Messages:
    35,486
    Likes Received:
    0



    I agree that Bush has stayed the course and that's what any good leader should do.

    But would you rather have someone like Bush—someone who deliberately disobeyed the United Nations to go into a nation that he had no right to go into in the first place and ignoring the main goal of the War on Terrorism, Usama bin Laden—or someone like Kerry—who promises to do things to help within the borders of the country instead of outsourcing all of our jobs to other countries and giving tax breaks to the wealthy instead of giving tax breaks to the hardworking citizens of America—run the country?

    That's the way I look at it. I'd rather have a President who is more focused on what's going on within the borders of the United States (including security) rather than what's going on outside the borders. While we're rebuilding Iraq, people are still losing their jobs in the United States, people are still in poverty, millions are still without health insurance... oh, but Iraq is doing just fine! That's not what I want. I want my future to be as certain as the day I was born. I would like to be certain that there's a job waiting for me when I get out of college. I'd rather be certain that I'm going to be able to support a family when I have one. I would not want to be certain that Abu Gooseberry Pickleshine is doing just fine over in Iraq because Bush helped him. I want the United States to help me and the citizens of its own borders, not another country.

    But then again, that's just how I look at it.
     
  20. #20
    Derek

    Derek LPAssociation.com Administrator LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    41,874
    Likes Received:
    2,334



    I do see your points about looking outside of the country instead of inside, and even Kerry made a point about that in his debate.

    The way I look at it, is although our own country is definetely important we also must be concerned about preventing terrorism at all times. America is the richest country on the face of this planet, and there are going to be terrorists out there who hate us for that.

    Not believing the theory that Bush was involved in plotting 9/11, I will say that the reason the towers were attacked was because the terrorists wanted to give a massive blow to our economy. The WTC was the center of commerce for the united states and its neighboring countries, and by getting rid of the towers it not only crippled our economy but several other countries as well. Al-Queda knew what they were doing when they planned which buildings to attack and they had this planned for a long time. It certainly was a bad move to have not stopped this attack before it happened, but looking at how Bush handled it afterwards, despite people saying the economy is sh*t, I believe it is a lot better than it was back around 9/11.

    When that attack happened, a lot of people lost their jobs, and despite the economy having its troubles here and there, I can say that we are moving ahead from what happened and not being held back by having such a problem with our economy all this time.

    If Kerry is elected and does a better job than Bush than more power to him. I couldn't understand where Kerry was getting his "13 Year" figures from but than again it was probably something to sway the Bush voters, like all of these idiotic campaign ads (from both sides) have been trying to do.
     

Share This Page