Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → The debate is over, who do you think 'won'?
1234
The debate is over, who do you think 'won'?
2004-09-30, 9:18 PM #41
Quote:
Yeah.. in the 18th century. It's totally obselete if you haven't noticed. Women can vote now. Non-white/non-landowners can vote now. And that's really nice, Keiran. Using what some racist bigot slaveholder said about the "beligerent" people of society? They should have taken a good look at themselves.

A) Belligerence is present in all time periods.
B) Belligerence has nothing to do with women. You think they are related?
C) Belligerence has nothing to do with race or slaves. You think they are related?
D) Yes, ALL founding fathers of the constitution were racist bigot slaveholders. But wait....the Constitution almost wasn't ratified because there was such a heated debate about slavery.
E) You have no idea what belligerent even means. Go look it up. (I'll give you a hint, it's what you did in that last post).
Democracy: rule by the stupid
2004-09-30, 9:23 PM #42
Quote:
Originally posted by finity5
I was at work, so I saw 15 minutes of the begining during my break... other than that I was told Bush got killed. Sounds like he let Kerry walk all over him, and didn't refute any of his attacks, the same old attacks he has been using in every speech he has given. I guess I wasn't expecting Bush to do too well, he can't debate, that's a fact I guess. He needs to prepare better for the next one, I have it recorded, but it sounds too painful to watch.


Whoever told you that either didn't watch the debate and was mislead by whoever told them, or was trying to mislead you. Bush certainly didn't let Kerry walk all over him. Watch the debate for yourself. Bush either won by a fairly slim margin, or tied with Kerry. But IMHO, Kerry's factual errors and sweeping, intentionally-misleading accusations undermine his position. But maybe not everyone sees his hypocrisy.
KOP_blujay
Just dancin'...and singin'...in the Force.
2004-09-30, 9:25 PM #43
Or maybe not everyone is dead-set against him...
COUCHMAN IS BACK BABY
2004-09-30, 9:26 PM #44
My initial reaction is that Kerry won the debate, but after I read the transcript I'll have a better idea. I'd rather judge it based on the argument than on who was "more calm". Speaking in a debate contest is a lot harder than it looks.
2004-09-30, 9:28 PM #45
Quote:
Originally posted by Tracer
Or maybe not everyone is dead-set against him...


Well, I'll admit I'm not exactly impartial. I do not think Kerry would make a good President for this country. But his hypocrisy and sweeping accusations against Bush about things he could not do anything about himself should be evident to anyone. :)
KOP_blujay
Just dancin'...and singin'...in the Force.
2004-09-30, 9:30 PM #46
I thought it was great when he brought up Nuclear proliferation, essentially forcing Bush to mispronounce "Nucular." My next-door neighbor at the dorm was just waiting for it.

Kerry had a couple of good points, and was the better speaker. I think Bush clearly laid out what he was going to do: just what he's been doing. Clearly some might not see what he's been doing as good for America, but I like the flat-out style more than Kerry's 'I'll make everyone happy' style.

Kerry seemed to know what he was talking about, but some contradictions were evident. Some of the people in the rooms around me thought Bush was beating the 'flip-flop' argument to death. I tried to point out two instances of him doing it in the debate, but whatever.
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....
2004-09-30, 9:31 PM #47
As far as the debates, Bush did worse than he did in the Gore debates, where I thought he came across as a very capable and frankly likeable candiate. He was off tonight.

Kerry started off strong, then kinda fumbled the rest of the way through.

Man, I wish one or the other will eventually kick ***... this race so far has been very annoying.

I hate that bloody roll eye emoticon...
2004-09-30, 9:31 PM #48
The smiley doesn't smooth things over between us, blujay. I WILL FIGHT YOU TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH.
COUCHMAN IS BACK BABY
2004-09-30, 9:46 PM #49
There can be only ONE!!
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....
2004-09-30, 9:49 PM #50
So Keiran, pray tell, how does the EC prevent belligerent people from doing whatever they do? 'Cause the last time I checked, all it did was misrepresent everyone's votes. Gore is the rightful president. If Bush was a real man he would have realized that and stepped down.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-09-30, 10:00 PM #51
Quote:
Originally posted by Snoopfighter639
thats when things get fun pheonix


Fun for you maybe. Not fun for me. No offence to anyone here, but I really cannot STAND to talk politics on this forums. I get riled up fairly fast, something I inheirited from my mom.
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams
Are you finding Ling-Ling's head?
Last Stand
2004-09-30, 10:09 PM #52
EC doesn't prevent belligerent people from doing anything. It clumps votes together, effectively making individual votes meaningless. So in order for belligerent(which usually means they are also radically partisan) people to affect government, and it'll always be negatively if they do, they would all have to live in one district or state with a majority of belligerent people of similar ideology for their voice to be truly heard. This is a check on the power of the masses. Luckily, these people tend to be spread out.

Btw, don't use the argument that Gore was the rightful president. That's a tired and empty argument. The president is decided by the electoral college, not the popular vote. Get over it. If Bush's and Gore's positions were reversed, you wouldn't be saying a thing about it.
Democracy: rule by the stupid
2004-09-30, 10:17 PM #53
Quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
I would say Kerry. He was far calmer, more collected, more polite, and he actually (for once..) took stances in the debate. Bush seemed out-of-control, angry, and flustered. Kerry responded immediately to questions, while Bush stammered, stuttered, and stalled.

I'd like to note that pretty much Bush's only argument against Kerry was that Kerry sent mixed messages and didn't take the same stance, while Bush is guilty of the same in regard to Iraq and North Korea: (while obviously yes, they are different situations, but inherently the same as this is all about Bush's 'tough stance') Bush didn't allow for talks and inspections to continue in Iraq, but he did for North Korea. And in the end, look what happened: Iraq never had any weapons, while North Korea now has nuclear weapons.

In conclusion, I find it extremely ironic that Bush said "mexed missages".
2004-09-30, 10:27 PM #54
Quote:
Originally posted by Kieran Horn
EC doesn't prevent belligerent people from doing anything. It clumps votes together, effectively making individual votes meaningless. So in order for belligerent(which usually means they are also radically partisan) people to affect government, and it'll always be negatively if they do, they would all have to live in one district or state with a majority of belligerent people of similar ideology for their voice to be truly heard. This is a check on the power of the masses. Luckily, these people tend to be spread out.

Btw, don't use the argument that Gore was the rightful president. That's a tired and empty argument. The president is decided by the electoral college, not the popular vote. Get over it. If Bush's and Gore's positions were reversed, you wouldn't be saying a thing about it.


But.. It shouldn't be. That's my point. What's wrong with a popular vote?
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-09-30, 10:36 PM #55
One reason that I already haven't stated is that smaller states would have significantly less power. The population from just a few large states(most of which are decisively one way or the other) could be enough to win the election, meaning smaller states would have no power. With the EC at least they have some say.
Democracy: rule by the stupid
2004-09-30, 10:49 PM #56
... That makes no sense at all.

If you have a classroom full of kids voting for homeroom representative, you don't think about whether row 1 has 6 chairs and row 2 only has 5. All you care about is that 15 people voted for one guy and 17 people voted for the other... as a classroom.. as a country.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-09-30, 10:56 PM #57
Quote:
Originally posted by Freelancer
So Keiran, pray tell, how does the EC prevent belligerent people from doing whatever they do? 'Cause the last time I checked, all it did was misrepresent everyone's votes. Gore is the rightful president. If Bush was a real man he would have realized that and stepped down.

Hahahaha. Are you STILL bitter about that?? Here's some nails, a hammer, and some wood. Start constructing.

Without the EC, all the candidates have to do is to go to places like, NY City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Chicago, Dallas...you see the point here. All they have to do is win metropolis after metropolis and the election is theirs. That leaves the rest of the state virtually ignored. The popular vote isn't wholly thrown out. Precincts report in to the state registrar on how each precinct voted. However the state decides on electorial votes is upto the states. That's the other thing about the EC, it gives functionality to the states. Not lump-summing into the nat. government. Something the Founders did NOT want.

Quote:
Originally posted by Freelancer
... That makes no sense at all.

If you have a classroom full of kids voting for homeroom representative, you don't think about whether row 1 has 6 chairs and row 2 only has 5. All you care about is that 15 people voted for one guy and 17 people voted for the other... as a classroom.. as a country.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The homeroom representative election is just a simple hands up for the candidate. National elections are MUCH LARGER.

As for the debates. I couldn't watch them because I was in class. I called mom to see how Bush (my candidate) did and she said that he got worked over. Didn't settle pretty with me but she did bring up a point on how Reagan got smashed in his first debate and came around to defeat Mondale thoroughly. Remember folks, there are TWO more debates.
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2004-09-30, 11:03 PM #58
First of all, I will respond to your prattle about visiting the larger density populations. We live in the information age. I can watch them on T.V. I can read their platform on their personal websites. I can google transcript after transcript, speech after speech to read. I don't care that he's never visited my blot on the map of a town. I can't imagine anyone getting uptight over that.

By the way - I'm afraid you have your facts wrong. In the EC system, candidates only need to focus on the swing states - those that have a tendency to flip back and forth between republican and democrat. States such as Ohio, Florida, Oregon, and Colorado. A popular vote would not only represent the collective will of the people, but it would require that candidates focus on the country as a whole instead of a couple of key states.

About "giving functionality to states": What the hell kind of "functionality" do you need to tally votes? It's not rocket science. Flexibility is not necessary. In fact, skewed results are the only inevitable result of said "functionality". Each state differs a little in the way it elects its electors. In fact, some states do not elect their electors democratically. How can that represent the will of the people?

Some more things to keep in mind:

- The EC was ratified by 13 jealous states weary of a central government. Each was vying for individual power.

- The EC makes votes in Wyoming 4 times as powerful as a vote in Florida. What good can come of that?

- Let's not forget the numerous times that the EC has not properly conveyed the collective (note "collective") will of the people. The measure of this is the popular vote.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-09-30, 11:13 PM #59
Doesn't matter about whether I can Google Bush's statements or Kerry's. If me, the voter, sees the candidate to TAKE THE TIME to come to my state or even city to personally campaign, it will look highly favorable to the electorate. It shows that the candidate actually want to hear them. Yes, they cannot all visit every city in the nation. When you're 3,000 miles across, it makes it difficult.
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2004-09-30, 11:21 PM #60
.. So you're admitting you're superficial enough to base your vote on whether or not a candidate visits your area? How does that have any relevance to a voter who wants to be informed and base his vote on what is best for the country?

Your argument is irrelevant.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-09-30, 11:25 PM #61
Quote:
You are comparing apples to oranges. The homeroom representative election is just a simple hands up for the candidate. National elections are MUCH LARGER.


What about the size of the election makes it any different? You do realize that a popular vote would involve less bureaucracy (and consequently less room for error and manipulation), yes?
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-09-30, 11:39 PM #62
"- Let's not forget the numerous times that the EC has not properly conveyed the collective (note "collective") will of the people. The measure of this is the popular vote.
"
IIRC, only...two candidates lost the popular and won the electoral vote. It seemed to have worked for the other 41 presidents.

"- The EC makes votes in Wyoming 4 times as powerful as a vote in Florida. What good can come of that?"
A small populated state can have the same clout as a larger populated one. If Bush didn't win WY, you all would be very happy.

".. So you're admitting you're superficial enough to base your vote on whether or not a candidate visits your area? How does that have any relevance to a voter who wants to be informed and base his vote on what is best for the country?"
That's not what I mean't. I will most definitely pay attention to the candidates as they go state to state. But a candidate coming to my state adds bonus points especially in the swing states. Going by election history, Bush can write-off California and try to win more states to make up for the staggering 52 EV. I will admit, this is a flaw in the EC. California is a significant outlier. There are other states with large EV counts (NY, FL, etc.) but CA beats the next highest by twenty (give or take). The system must be fixed for it was not really designed for states with disproportionate populations.

"What about the size of the election makes it any different? You do realize that a popular vote would involve less bureaucracy (and consequently less room for error and manipulation), yes?"
Mmm...I think that's just shifting the same amount of work from the states to the national.

I think we've hijacked this thread quite thoroughly... :o
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2004-09-30, 11:55 PM #63
There have been far more than two anamolies with the EC:

1800: Jefferson vs. Burr. Both got an equal amount of electorate votes. This required the ratification of the 12th amendment. This election was undemocratically decided for us by the house.

1824: There were 4 viable candidates up for election. Each of them got roughly the same amount of votes, thus no one had the necessary majoirty to become president. Again, it went to the house, where Adams was voted in instead of Jackson, who got the popular vote. Again, an elite few (oligarchy) voting for our president.

1836: The Whig part decided to run 3 different candidates in different areas of the country, hoping to get a majority of the electorate votes for the party. The scheme failed, but is an example of the manipulation that is possible within the EC system.

1872: Horace Greeley (democratic candidate) died during the period between the election of the electors and the time for them to cast their votes. Thus, the electors ended up splitting their votes amounst THREE other democratic candidates! Do you see the problem with this?

1888: Benjamin Harrison was voted into office despite the fact that Grover Cleveland had 100,000 more votes than him.

2000: Yeah, let's not even go there.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-10-01, 12:08 AM #64
Quote:
Mmm...I think that's just shifting the same amount of work from the states to the national.


Let's discuss, shall we?

Do you really think a popular vote would be this complicated?

Quote:
How the Electoral College Works

The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates:

* Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).
* The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs.
* Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
* After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions

traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot.
* On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).
* Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].
* On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president.
* In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States).
* The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress.
* The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.
* In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.
* At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office.


Now, repeat the process fifty times. Yay.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-10-01, 12:20 AM #65
Quote:
Originally posted by blujay
But IMHO, Kerry's factual errors and sweeping, intentionally-misleading accusations undermine his position. But maybe not everyone sees his hypocrisy.


I agree with that. I also thought Kerry was a little more style than substance in a couple of cases. He was very vague with some of his answers where Bush was at least clear on what he was saying.
Pissed Off?
2004-10-01, 3:53 AM #66
I thought it was basically a tie with no one being the clear winner. I thought Kerry did a good enough job of speaking but he was saying so many false things that it was not really possible for Bush to respond to all of his statements. Kerry did flounder whenever asked to specifically explain his plans. I remember when he said "I'll tell you exactly what I'll do" and then within a sentence or two went back to anti-Bush comments.

Also, I thought the debate was fairly boring. Maybe the next one will be better.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2004-10-01, 6:04 AM #67
Quote:
Originally posted by blujay
Well, I'll admit I'm not exactly impartial. I do not think Kerry would make a good President for this country. But his hypocrisy and sweeping accusations against Bush about things he could not do anything about himself should be evident to anyone. :)


Many of the same arguments can be made about Bush. Bush's stance on things has hardly been consistent IMO.

I voted for Bush in 2000 without even having watched any of the debates. I was suprised to see him handle himself so well when I actually watched them this time. He wasn't perfect...he DID stutter/stammer a few times but that didn't happen often. It sort of boggles my mind that he can be such a solid debater when most of the time he can't even read a prepared speech.

My hats off to him, he was pretty damn quick on his feet in that debate. I particularly liked how he took the question about a miscalculation of how much time we needed in Iraq and managed to twist it around to a positive. I think its BS myself, but it he did a pretty good job of articulating that BS and if I hadn't been paying attention to the news in the last 6 months....I might just have bought it.

I got to say, Kerry really held his own though. His campaign had been saying Bush has never lost a debate and they had their work cut out for them. He handled himself pretty well all things considered. He was playing defense a lot on the same old stuff, just like Bush was. He just let a lot of those accusations fly by without even trying to refute them during the rebuttal. Something I think was a grave mistake. The Bush campaign has been trying to paint him as an inconsistent flip-flopper for awhile now, the debates are probably watched by a lot of people...it would have been a good idea to at least try and refute those claims while such a broad audience is watching.

I don't know who won. Neither of them is a particularly great debater, both flawed in their own ways. Bush was good at repeating for emphasis, although he went to far with it and was stretching some of his points. He grabbed a point and just hammbered it home. If you do that, you can sometimes even win with a bad arguement.

Kerry had some good arguements, but his delivery is still off. He was signifigantly less incoherent then he usually is, but he still was throwing out jumbled sounding arguements sometimes that just left you going "Wait...WTF is he saying?"

Now if they have a debate between John Edwards and Cheney, Cheney will probably get destroyed. He'll start swearing and have a heart attack. :D
-El Scorcho

"Its dodgeball time!" -Stormy Waters
2004-10-01, 6:09 AM #68
Hmmm, how come theres no, "I dont care and both candidates deserve to lose their left testicle' option?
nope.
2004-10-01, 6:20 AM #69
Popular Election: the President has no reason to please Wy. or RI., or any small state. The people there simply can't affect his election chances, even if they wanted to.

The office-holders need not account for their decisions that adversely affect small or low population states, those people have essentially been disenfranchised.

It sounds good in theory, I've felt it was a good idea at times too, but it isn't just a check on the masses as it was at our founding. Besides being one nation, we are 50 states, and there is still an element of sectionalism. In a popular vote, only a small part of a few states has to be won, and the reast of the country's voice is silenced.
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....
2004-10-01, 7:11 AM #70
Joe Lockhart, Kerry advisor, said in private that it was a draw, and he wasn't happy about it at all.
Frightening the very small and very old since 1952.
2004-10-01, 8:54 AM #71
Quote:
Originally posted by Bounty Hunter 4 hire
Popular Election: the President has no reason to please Wy. or RI., or any small state. The people there simply can't affect his election chances, even if they wanted to.


Which they of course do in an electoral. Even states like Alaska counted in this last election. Really the superiority of the electoral system over a popular vote system seems obvious to me. That wasn't always the case. I used to think popular vote would be the way to go but we've obviously learned alot about the system in the last few years.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2004-10-01, 9:00 AM #72
Quote:
Originally posted by El Scorcho
Kerry had some good arguements, but his delivery is still off. He was signifigantly less incoherent then he usually is, but he still was throwing out jumbled sounding arguements sometimes that just left you going "Wait...WTF is he saying?"


There were a few times that we couldn't even remember what question was asked because he would just keep going. He did a good job of repeating falacious accusations and I know that was pissing Bush off since there was not enough opportunity to respond to them all.

Quote:
Originally posted by El Scorcho
Now if they have a debate between John Edwards and Cheney, Cheney will probably get destroyed. He'll start swearing and have a heart attack. :D


I think Cheney will come out on top of a debate with Edwards although I do find your prediction humorous.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2004-10-01, 9:08 AM #73
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041001/ap_on_el_pr/debate_rdp_32


I find this quite humorous. Three, count em THREE polls found Kerry to have done better! Now if there isn't a more conclusive piece of evidence, I can't think of what it would be lol. Yahoo has a lot of funny titles for their "reports"
www.dailyvault.com. - As Featured in Guitar Hero II!
2004-10-01, 9:39 AM #74
I think it's sad that anyone can think bush did remotely good in this. Bush seemed to repeat the same three things over and over again; 'it's hard work!', 'we're doing everything we can', 'kerry flip flops'. When it comes to the "flip flopping" argument, kerry explained that very well, but he still kept bringing it up. From the rest of Bush's answers, it would seem that he doesn't even know what planet he's on.

On an unrelated note, did anyone else pay attention to kerry's eyebrows? They're hillarious!
The music industry is a cruel and shallow money trench where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.
2004-10-01, 9:51 AM #75
Their was a debate? I thought they were both candidates just sat there spouting Campaign promises. No actual arguing went on. No-one was refuted. Bush said his piece and Kerry goes "I will do better!" I bet it convinced no-one and just rallied the people with-in the parties.
2004-10-01, 9:55 AM #76
It boggles my mind that people can possibly defend the electoral college system. I mean, in the Canadian and British systems (I believe Britian works the same way) you vote for a guy to represent your area and he gets a seat in parliament. Hello, logic...

These systems are far from perfect, but EC is just plain whacked.
COUCHMAN IS BACK BABY
2004-10-01, 10:10 AM #77
All you have to do is look at a county by county map of the US to see that the vast majority of the country, in geographic terms, votes Republican. Densely populated areas tend to vote Democrat. The electoral system does much to level out this inequity. Popular votes would probably make sense in a small nation like UK or a sparsely populated one like Canada.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2004-10-01, 10:19 AM #78
Quote:
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet
Their was a debate? I thought they were both candidates just sat there spouting Campaign promises. No actual arguing went on. No-one was refuted. Bush said his piece and Kerry goes "I will do better!" I bet it convinced no-one and just rallied the people with-in the parties.


That's another thing. They call it a "Debate", but it's really just two guys sitting there while someone else asks them questions. That's not a debate, that's an interview. Take the canadian election debate for instance, you have all the candidates in a room, talking to eachother, asking themselves the questions. No huge crowd needed, no one needs to ask the questions for them. That is a debate.
The music industry is a cruel and shallow money trench where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.
2004-10-01, 10:30 AM #79
Quote:
The electoral system does much to level out this inequity.
There is no inequity in a popular vote.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2004-10-01, 10:32 AM #80
First off, I would like to say that I believe Kerry was definitely the stronger debater last night and did a wonderful job. Bush really did seem flustered and agitated the entire night while Kerry just seemed calm. Kerry seemed to approach the issues seriously with at least a little bit of focus on 'how' and 'when' he was going to address these issues while Bush mainly focused on 'Well, I'm president, you're in the Senate and you change your mind.'

If you thought it was a loaded question about Kerry's character to Bush then how did you think Kerry did with the loaded question about Bush lying to the country? I think he handled it well and made his points while not pissing off the hicks(I'll get to them later).

If you watched the CSPAN coverage and listened to the callers after the debate it seemed like everyone who supported Bush after the debate did so because he "was a good moral man who does what he says and Kerry is a flip-flopper." I thought it was kind of interesting. Finally towards the end of the calls before they cut to Madeleine Albright one caller put an end to the Republican tirade of flip-flopping by saing "It just means that Kerry looks at the information, and then re-evaluates his position when more information comes in" While the hicks were just like "Bush is president and Kerry is mean because he makes fun of the President." Ya... I cant believe these people can even stand being alive if they're so dumb.

Anyways, did anyone else notice Bush completely misunderstanding Kerry when Kerry said that Osama can now use the situation in Iraq for recruitment? Bush responded by saying something about how Osama doesnt choose how the US defends itself. WHAT? It's almost comparable to Kerry talking about N. Korea and Bush responding about something in Iraq.

Sometimes it seemed that Bush wasnt even paying attention.

(if you havent noticed I'm the opposite of blujay, i'm definitely partial to Kerry)
"Those ****ing amateurs... You left your dog, you idiots!"
1234

↑ Up to the top!