The Debates

[Casey]

30 Allies in collolition forces...We are fighting with 90% of everything over there. That means the other 30 countires are doing 1/3 of 1 percent. Great collolition there :rolleyes:

He said he would START getting us out of Iraq. We will stay there as long as we have to but his plan calls for a majority of forces out in 4 years and not 6 months.

Well Bush won the debate IMO. At least he isnt as big as a "flip flopper" as Kerry is. What can we expect of the U.N. to not help, when France, Germany, and Russia at the time had oil contracts with Iraq. Even the oil for food program, France supplied Iraq with weapons. You can even call Jaque Chirac, Jaque Iraq.

And ''90%'' of the troops over there are ours. And the rest are coalitions forces from 30 different countries, at least those countries are helping out.

edit:I'm just really tired to think right now with SATs coming up. To tired to debate, and I dont think its worth debating over since its rather petty. We all can just agree that you think that way, and I think this way. Thats why I deleted alot of my last post, but it looks like you saw it to soon.

[Shlup]

I hate them both. I still think I hate Kerry more though.

[edczxcvbnm]

Well normally don't say much when people edit their posts and I see it but I had already post my response myself damn it

I also agree that we think way to differently. I am such a global person.

[Trumpet Thief]

chaos: Well really, they both are candidates I don't like. For one, Kerry kept moving the spotlight to Osama, while Bush kept going on about "you have to take the offensive" along with Saddam.

Rubedo: Truly, that took up most of the time. Although, Kerry seemed more prepared. Bush made quite a few mistakes, but, he too did make some points I suppose.

Trowa: Perhaps they should give Neider a chance?

[Big D]

Well Bush won the debate IMO. At least he isnt as big as a "flip flopper" as Kerry is.

Leaders often have to change their minds; it's a part of coming to the right conclusion. Admitting error, listening to new information. Bush just blunders ahead with whatever he sets his heart on, regardless of what arises. Hell, there were times when I supported the idea of military action against Iraq, dependent on certain conditions. However, the conduct of the war, its consequences, the reasoning behind it don't stand up to just and reasonable scrutiny.

What can we expect of the U.N. to not help,

Who's running the interim administration in Afghanistan? Whose peacekeepers are dying to protect Iraq? Whose operations have helped with peacekeeping in the Balkans, restored democracy to East Timor and recently cleaned up the Solomon Islands corruption? The UN.

when France, Germany, and Russia at the time had oil contracts with Iraq. Even the oil for food program, France supplied Iraq with weapons. You can even call Jaque Chirac, Jaque Iraq.

And who was the biggest beneficiary of the "oil for food" programme, the biggest supporter of the flawed sanctions? The US, of course. Saddam Hussein waged war on Iran when both sides were armed by the US. His grip on power was firmed by US support. It's severly hyppocritical for the US to blame other nations for not supporting the invasion it led.

President Bush is entirely content to condemn other nations to destruction, because in his opinion they pose a threat, or harbour undesirables. People die because of his whims, and he tells us that his God is giving his blessing.

Under Kerry, the US would have fewer inflexible, hard-line do-or-die policies. Other nations would be more prepared to trust the US, because of Kerry's apparent ability to listen to reason, rather than forming one cemented opinion and closing his eyes to any information except that which backs up his notions. I don't hate Bush, but I do see his leadership as presenting a huge risk to the safety of the US, international alliances, and the free world in general.

[Trumpet Thief]

chaos: I agree with what Big D had to say. Kerry admitted that he made a mistake, accepted it, and changed it. Bush on the other hand, stayed with his decision even if it was wrong.

Rubedo: Although, he did stay with his decision, continuing something wrong wouldn't be what I'd truly want. I'd say Kerry would be my choice, but anything can happen. Before, I detested both of them.

[The Captain]

Having spent the last two hours listening to talking heads on both the left and right, the answer is more or less the same:

Kerry won the debate. If this was being scored like an actual debate, he'd have dominated across the board, though I'd hardly call this an actual debate to be frank. When neither candidate could directly question the other, it ended up being more or less two people talking about their views without either calling each other out directly. Yet, despite that, Kerry who I think we can all agree is a much more skilled debater, was more able to use standard debate tactics to call Bush out on certain thigns said. On the other hand, Bush remained on his point, and while I really feel it's a flawed one, his supporters thought he stayed on message.

Also of note, many many people noticed how Bush became flustered when Kerry pointed something out, and if this is any indication of how the second two debates will go, Republicans beware because it's usually the cooler, more collected of the two that gains the upperhand.

Kerry had a lot to gain tonight and he did so. Bush didn't really say anything profound nor did he really change anyone's opinion because he hardly strayed from his same message.

The real tests now are to come: the town hall meeting in St. Louis, where we will see who really can act on their feet, the third debate in Arizona which will supposedly be a discussion of economics and domestic affairs and finally, the single vice presidential debate in Ohio. If things hold up or hold pattern as they have through this first debate, the race will be a lot closer than it appears on the surface.

Also to keep in mind before factoring in polling and the apparent gaps that the candidates have or had: this may well prove to be the election that ups the ante in the voter process. Judging from what I've gathered, there is a large influx of new blood who have never voted before and right now, their views haven't factored into the current polls. The question is, will these new voters be for Bush or Kerry?

Take care all.

[nik0tine]

I just think Kerry is a flip-flopper. He voted for the war then voted against it, and before on.

Kerry is not a flip flopper. He's just a liar. He gave bush the authority to go to war knowing all to well that he would invade iraq. There was no moral reason behind the invasion of iraq at all, but there was a political reason, and that's why kerry voted for it. Now he is just twisting the truth and trying to use the war against geroge bush. I hope it works.

If anybody is a 'flip flopper' its Bush. We went to war because of WMD's. No wait, we went to war because he posed an imminent threat. No wait, we wen't to war to 'liberate' an oppressed people. No no, wait, i got it now, we went to war to spread democracy and revolutionize the middle east. And we call Kerry the flip flopper? Please...

[Doc Sark]

I watched this at an absurd time on BBC News. I thought that Kerry nailed Bush on the debate, however I did get a little a bit scared when he said:

"I am going to hunt down and kill the terrorists." He had a psychotic glint in his eye! It was good to watch though. Very interesting.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

I didn't see a lot of it, but I recorded it. I'll probably watch it tonight.

From what I saw though, Bush represented himself quite poorly. His points aside, he stuttered a great deal and used the word "um" far too much. Both of these things should NEVER happen in a debate.

Yeah, because Bush was really pissed off at Kerry. I notice how his face got all red.

How is this an excuse? If I'm mad at someone and debating with them, it pushes me to do better. If someone can't control their temper in a simple debate, I shudder to see how they will handle much more important matters with the power of the presidency behind them...

... oh wait.

[Shadow Nexus]

Oh, well, I was sure Kerry was going to speak better. Bush can have people write speeches for him, he can have Cheney, and Ashcroft and the rest of the pigs in the Republican party backing him up. However, well, everyone knows Bush is not exactly bright. On a face to face with an intelligent person- and I may not like Kerry much but he is intelligent- Bush cannot go into his speeches or seek for help: He is alone and relies on his wisdom and intelligence. And those are not his great atributes.

[Skogs]

If the Americans are so unimpressed with a 'flip-flopping' candidate, then they shouldn't be so high in praise for Tony Blair. He has done U-turns on most major policies I can think of. The two that spring to mind were that: 1: he said that unilateral action should not be taken without the UN's consent 2: he said that he would not instigate top-up fees for universities. There were many other policies as well he has flip-flopped over. No reverse gear, my arse.

And from what I can gather from most news sources, Kerry had a clear, but narrow, win over Bush.

[Turk]

The eyes of the rest of the world, there is no bigger "flip-flopper" than President Bush.

I hate both those corporate lying bastards both with a passion (both of the suckers mentioned the Iraq war for Israeli security twice), but Kerry definitely flattened Bush in the debate. The American newspapers are mostly owned by Republicans I'm assuming because a lot of them even went as far to say "DEBATES A TIE". The press is supporting Bush big time. What debate? I don't recall Bush ever even putting Kerry on the verge of a sweat. He looked and sounded horrible.

And a big point I would like to make is, he had no reply to Kerry's comment on Halliburton.

Kerry won. Although he too is an ass.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

All polling indicates Kerry won the debate. Which makes me happy. Which is all that matters.

[DMKA]

This debate has drastically changed my view, and though I disliked both candidates before, I find myself agreeing with Kerry more and more.

Like ed, his views on foreign policy seem extremely reasonable to me. Bush has proved to be a complete idiot when it comes to trying to get allies. In the debate he mentioned the countries that have supported us, but Kerry was quick to rebuttle by describing the small numbers they offer. "90% casualties, 90% cost," Kerry said a couple times.

Bush screwed up, as far as I'm concerned. He was very unproffessional. He paused awkwardly far too often, he avoided Kerry's challenges and hid behind his constant, "Mixed message," excuse. ed was also right that Bush rarely gave support as to why his methods were working. Kerry didn't have that burden, however, as his ideas had not been put to the test.

My dad, who I watched it with, pointed out that, in the beginning, both Bush and Kerry were looking towards the crowd or Lehrer. I was a bit taken by this. I didn't really notice, but once I did, it was really, really awkward. Once I was aware of this, I kept waiting for them to look. Eye contact is important, even if you're on TV, looking at the camera is just as good.

Kerry was a lot more organized in his approach. He constantly took notes, and when you looked at him, you knew he was listening to Bush. He was sly and when Bush said something without clarifying what he was refering to it, Kerry turned it around on him. That may upset some, but that strikes me as intelligent, and I'd like an intelligent president.

Kerry made the mistake of saying, "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place," and Bush mashed that into him for the rest of the debate. I think Bush used it too much, and in the end, it didn't mean the same thing anymore and it's effectiveness was completely lost.

Kerry thrashed Bush's rear.

You've just written my US History additional point exam essay...THANK YOU!

No seriously thats my thoughts exactly on the debates...though the way they were looking didn't really stand out to me...meh.