The debat thread

[RawAlex]

Okay, just got the "we didn't need that tax cut, we needed to make american safer"... and Bush stumbled and looked lost.

Bush has been waffling, avoiding the questions, answering what HE wants to talk about, not even attempting to answering what he is asked. Looking VERY evasive.

Anybody?

Alex

[Nickatilynx]

I agree...Kerry is winning the debate.

But Bush will still win the Whitehouse.

[RawAlex]

Bush is really looking like he forgot his cue cards...

Alex

[Nickatilynx]

Stuttering...whining...






but enough of you Alex!!!







( sorry I HAD to!!)

[XXXPhoto]

Ok... this is from my 14 yo daughter... "Daddy, why does Bush seem so confused?"

[RawAlex]

but but but... I have... had... will have...going to have... the right respons-answer in a minute or soon or something like that.

Alex

[Nickatilynx]

Bush is having his ass handed to him....






but he will still win.





I love Bush's "cunty" look LOL

;-)))

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by XXXPhoto@Sep 30 2004, 05:15 PM
Ok... this is from my 14 yo daughter... "Daddy, why does Bush seem so confused?"
:okthumb:

from the mouths of...etc etc

spot on...

[RawAlex]

Man, it's really difficult to watch him. He is getting annoyed, and he is starting to run in circles.

Alex

[cj]

wow, i'm astonished this man has been given the responsiblity of running a country.

this is like watching a high school debate!!!!

[slavdogg]

Originally posted by cj@Sep 30 2004, 08:30 PM
wow, i'm astonished this man has been given the responsiblity of running a country.

this is like watching a high school debate!!!!
they're broadcasting it downunder ??

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by slavdogg+Sep 30 2004, 05:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (slavdogg @ Sep 30 2004, 05:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-cj@Sep 30 2004, 08:30 PM
wow, i'm astonished this man has been given the responsiblity of running a country.

this is like watching a high school debate!!!!
they're broadcasting it downunder ?? [/b][/quote]
yeah but the picture is upside down.



;-))



ooops nope thats just Bush's grin ;-)))

[Almighty Colin]

Seems like a draw from the few minutes I've been able to watch.

[XXXPhoto]

Originally posted by cj@Sep 30 2004, 05:30 PM
this is like watching a high school debate!!!!
Only on the right hand side of the screen CJ... There's a fine line between a silent pause for effect and just standing behind the podium without a clue how to respond... lol

[pushpills]

Bush is doing well. Flipping alot of shit back at kerry....a few awkward pauses but....he's making kerry look worse than he's making himself look.

[Buff]

Just posted this on my journal:

God save us all.

"SPEAK, MOTHERFUCKER, SPEAK! FINISH YOUR FUCKING THOUGHT YOU GODDAMNED IDIOT," I yelled at the television when Bush said, "If Kim Jung Il doesn't listen to the international community then... uhhh... [10 second lapse]... uhh..." and then I lost track of his derailed train of thought.

Kerry is a colossal disaster who has no more understanding of what the real threats are or how to deal with them than my 2 year old nephew does of 6th Century Japanese Literature. But Bush has the brainpower of a trained monkey who can't follow a train of thought for more than five or ten words including articles (a, an, the) -- I can't believe one of these two morons will have authority to launch nuclear missiles.

Oh dear Jesus. This country is fucking done. Done. Finished. Kerry would say he'd smear shit on his chest if he thought it would guarantee him a victory in November, and Bush wouldn't be able to provide a coherent, fluid response if you wrote it for him and he could read it off a dummy card.

"Mexed Mixages." Does this motherfucker have Slyxdexia?

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!

I want out. I really want out. It's time for a fucking revolt. Who's with me? Who among you will stand by me as I take this country back?

[XXXPhoto]

Buff,

I still can't decide if yours or Pushpills post was funnier... could I have an encore as tiebreaker?

[Buff]

At first, Bush was doing mediocre and Kerry was doing shitty. Bush made him look silly. But then Bush started losing his train of thought and started that mumble mouthed shit that shows the inability to think his way out of a wet paper bag, and Kerry started getting better. At this point I'd score it like this:

1-100 scale.

Speaking Ability

Bush: 7
Kerry: 40

Policy

Bush: 55
Kerry: 13

Making me want to expatriate

Bush: 95
Kerry: 90

Total Debate Score

Bush: 6
Kerry: 11

Conclusion: The thought that one of these men already leads the free world and one of them is guaranteed to lead it for the next 4 years makes me wonder if we couldn't do better randomly picking one US Citizen's name out of a hat instead of having an election.

And Alex, try some unbiased analysis for a change. Everyone knows you'd suck Kerry's cock if he smiled at you. Try being objective.

Anyone who votes for either of these men is part of the problem.

[Mike AI]

Yeah Bush did a weak job, at least at the end.

Kerry did better in talking....

I don't think this is going to change anything. Bush is still going to win.
There was no homeruns for Kerry.

It was pretty boring...

[grimm]

Originally posted by XXXPhoto@Sep 30 2004, 05:15 PM
Ok... this is from my 14 yo daughter... "Daddy, why does Bush seem so confused?"
now that is classic

[Buff]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Sep 30 2004, 08:12 PM
Yeah Bush did a weak job, at least at the end.

Kerry did better in talking....

I don't think this is going to change anything. Bush is still going to win.
There was no homeruns for Kerry.

It was pretty boring...
It was frustrating.

So
Very
Frustrating

[grimm]

Originally posted by pushpills@Sep 30 2004, 05:48 PM
Bush is doing well. Flipping alot of shit back at kerry....a few awkward pauses but....he's making kerry look worse than he's making himself look.
he doesnt have to try to make himself lok like an idiot. he has condoleeza rice and dick cheney for that:)

[Vick]

Didn't watch it
Wasn't there and still ......

.... I know I could have won :P

[Vick]

Originally posted by Buff@Sep 30 2004, 09:02 PM
Anyone who votes for either of these men is part of the problem.
1 down
289,999,999 more Americans to go



Personally I think anyone who votes is part of the problem

[Buff]

Originally posted by Vick@Sep 30 2004, 08:19 PM
Didn't watch it
Wasn't there and still ......

.... I know I could have won :P
Vick, if it had been you vs either of them, you would be elected dictator tomorrow and they'd be shot.

[Evil Chris]

90 minutes of Bush attempting to justify his actions in Iraq.

Kerry came out better in this one, and a debate on foreign policy no less.

Bush should have won this one in a landslide. He didn't.

[PornoDoggy]

Buff ... please. Go. Leave now. Do not let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

I don't think Kerry "hit a home run". I don't think that this specific debate will change many people's minds.

If Kerry can come across as well in all three of them, however, it could have an impact.

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Sep 30 2004, 08:37 PM
Buff ... please. Go. Leave now. Do not let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

I don't think Kerry "hit a home run". I don't think that this specific debate will change many people's minds.

If Kerry can come across as well in all three of them, however, it could have an impact.
Eat a dick.

Kerry missed a lot of opportunities -- why didn't he stuff "Mission Accomplished" down Bush's throat? It's dumb and dumber and idiots like you choosing sides.

[XXXPhoto]

Originally posted by Vick@Sep 30 2004, 06:19 PM
Didn't watch it
Wasn't there and still ......

.... I know I could have won :P
Vick,

Not to downplay your conjouring skills... But the last 20 mins Bush was pulling answers out of his ass...

[pushpills]

Originally posted by Buff+Sep 30 2004, 08:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Sep 30 2004, 08:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Sep 30 2004, 08:37 PM
Buff ... please. Go. Leave now. Do not let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

I don't think Kerry "hit a home run". I don't think that this specific debate will change many people's minds.

If Kerry can come across as well in all three of them, however, it could have an impact.
Eat a dick.

Kerry missed a lot of opportunities -- why didn't he stuff "Mission Accomplished" down Bush's throat? It's dumb and dumber and idiots like you choosing sides. [/b][/quote]
he did, you can't possibly tell us you followed the whole thing. there were alot of big words and sentences.

[Mike AI]

BUFF FOR PRESIDENT!

:salute:

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Buff+Sep 30 2004, 09:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Sep 30 2004, 09:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Sep 30 2004, 08:37 PM
Buff ... please. Go. Leave now. Do not let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

I don't think Kerry "hit a home run". I don't think that this specific debate will change many people's minds.

If Kerry can come across as well in all three of them, however, it could have an impact.
Eat a dick.

Kerry missed a lot of opportunities -- why didn't he stuff "Mission Accomplished" down Bush's throat? It's dumb and dumber and idiots like you choosing sides. [/b][/quote]
Eat a dick? Great googly moogly, man, I haven't encountered that retort since Junior High School.

To paraphrase that great American Al Swearingin, one of those two cocksuckers is going to be the cocksucking President. I'm not an America hater like yourself, so I gotta pick one or the other.

So please ... get your fucking ass to someplace you'd feel more comfortable, or go to Idaho and wait for the revolution.

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Sep 30 2004, 08:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Sep 30 2004, 08:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Buff@Sep 30 2004, 09:39 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Sep 30 2004, 08:37 PM
Buff ... please. Go. Leave now. Do not let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

I don't think Kerry "hit a home run". I don't think that this specific debate will change many people's minds.

If Kerry can come across as well in all three of them, however, it could have an impact.
Eat a dick.

Kerry missed a lot of opportunities -- why didn't he stuff "Mission Accomplished" down Bush's throat? It's dumb and dumber and idiots like you choosing sides.
Eat a dick? Great googly moogly, man, I haven't encountered that retort since Junior High School.

To paraphrase that great American Al Swearingin, one of those two cocksuckers is going to be the cocksucking President. I'm not an America hater like yourself, so I gotta pick one or the other.

So please ... get your fucking ass to someplace you'd feel more comfortable, or go to Idaho and wait for the revolution. [/b][/quote]
America hater? I love America, that's why I hate politicians -- they are fucking up this country. I bet in junior high you had a lot of guys telling you eat a dick, and I'm sure you complied.

[grimm]

Originally posted by Buff+Sep 30 2004, 06:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Sep 30 2004, 06:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Sep 30 2004, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Buff@Sep 30 2004, 09:39 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Sep 30 2004, 08:37 PM
Buff ... please. Go. Leave now. Do not let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

I don't think Kerry "hit a home run". I don't think that this specific debate will change many people's minds.

If Kerry can come across as well in all three of them, however, it could have an impact.
Eat a dick.

Kerry missed a lot of opportunities -- why didn't he stuff "Mission Accomplished" down Bush's throat? It's dumb and dumber and idiots like you choosing sides.
Eat a dick? Great googly moogly, man, I haven't encountered that retort since Junior High School.

To paraphrase that great American Al Swearingin, one of those two cocksuckers is going to be the cocksucking President. I'm not an America hater like yourself, so I gotta pick one or the other.

So please ... get your fucking ass to someplace you'd feel more comfortable, or go to Idaho and wait for the revolution.
America hater? I love America, that's why I hate politicians -- they are fucking up this country. I bet in junior high you had a lot of guys telling you eat a dick, and I'm sure you complied. [/b][/quote]
great googly moogly, america hater? so if you are anti bush you are anti america. what a fascist. shine up your jack boots, jesus. America Hater is the dumbest thing i have ever heard in this context.


Biggest load of bullshit i ever heard. what is your level of education? you sound like a high school dropout. way to simplify things into sound bytes and rhetoric. it is because of people like you that america finds itsef with two idiots to vote for. you are not a republican, you show no signs of any of the tenets of a representative republic. you show more of the tenets of fascism. Your way or the highway, eh. Ill take the highway

[Vick]

Originally posted by XXXPhoto+Sep 30 2004, 09:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (XXXPhoto @ Sep 30 2004, 09:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Vick@Sep 30 2004, 06:19 PM
Didn't watch it
Wasn't there and still ......

.... I know I could have won :P
Vick,

Not to downplay your conjouring skills... But the last 20 mins Bush was pulling answers out of his ass... [/b][/quote]
Why thank you butt ....


Mine come out of my vest (or strait jacket) so they may no smell so bad :lol:

[Vick]

Originally posted by Buff+Sep 30 2004, 09:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Sep 30 2004, 09:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Vick@Sep 30 2004, 08:19 PM
Didn't watch it
Wasn't there and still ......

.... I know I could have won :P
Vick, if it had been you vs either of them, you would be elected dictator tomorrow and they'd be shot. [/b][/quote]
:wnw: Thank you :wnw:

and Single Moms continue to thank you for your support

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Buff@Sep 30 2004, 09:49 PM
America hater? I love America, that's why I hate politicians -- they are fucking up this country. I bet in junior high you had a lot of guys telling you eat a dick, and I'm sure you complied.
Yes, Buffy, there were lots of people in Junior High School who were challenged enough in the vocabulary department that the smartest retort they could come up with is "eat a dick." I felt sorry for 12 & 13 year olds that could do any better than that; as I have suggested before, a private-school educated ADULT who can't do any better than that ought to find himself an evil trial lawyer and sue to recoop his tuition., because he obviously didn't get much for his money.

As far as whether I complied or not, don't see how that matters one bit. However, if it makes you feel more macho to challenge me on that score, you go, girlfriend.

Regarding the rest of your claptrap, I've heard it all before. Kennedy (then LBJ) was taking God out of the very same classrooms he was putting the niggers into. Roosevelt was going to turn America into another Soviet Union. Andrew Jackson was going to destroy America by letting commoners vote - which is I suspect a big objection of yours, actually.

[cj]

Originally posted by slavdogg+Sep 30 2004, 08:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (slavdogg @ Sep 30 2004, 08:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-cj@Sep 30 2004, 08:30 PM
wow, i'm astonished this man has been given the responsiblity of running a country.

this is like watching a high school debate!!!!
they're broadcasting it downunder ?? [/b][/quote]
yes, we all have televisions in our homes now :P

besides, our federal electoral campaign is a big fat yawn. its next weekend ... if anybody noticed ... or cares :rolleyes:

compulsory voting makes the marketing less impressive over here LOL

the american presidential marketing campaigns will have more impact on our election than our aussie campaigns .... & more television airtime :biglaugh:

That was a big fat joke & mockery of democracy IMO

I loved how Bush says 'we were attacked so we attacked back' and Kerry just says 'um, dude, bin laden attacked us' then bush goes on for another 2 minutes about saddam :rolleyes:

If this is democracy, wtf is the point?!?!?

[grimm]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Sep 30 2004, 07:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Sep 30 2004, 07:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Buff@Sep 30 2004, 09:49 PM
America hater? I love America, that's why I hate politicians -- they are fucking up this country. I bet in junior high you had a lot of guys telling you eat a dick, and I'm sure you complied.
Yes, Buffy, there were lots of people in Junior High School who were challenged enough in the vocabulary department that the smartest retort they could come up with is "eat a dick." I felt sorry for 12 & 13 year olds that could do any better than that; as I have suggested before, a private-school educated ADULT who can't do any better than that ought to find himself an evil trial lawyer and sue to recoop his tuition., because he obviously didn't get much for his money.

As far as whether I complied or not, don't see how that matters one bit. However, if it makes you feel more macho to challenge me on that score, you go, girlfriend.

Regarding the rest of your claptrap, I've heard it all before. Kennedy (then LBJ) was taking God out of the very same classrooms he was putting the niggers into. Roosevelt was going to turn America into another Soviet Union. Andrew Jackson was going to destroy America by letting commoners vote - which is I suspect a big objection of yours, actually. [/b][/quote]
so you are pro segregation, and for church in school.


Ladies and Gentlemen, George Wallace. Ho do you gt DSL in your cabin in the woods? Those are two issues that are at the stage they are at for a reason. church doesnot belong in school for a REASON. Integration happened for a REASON. ts called progress. Neocon republicans share the same boat with Osama Bin Ladin when it comes to Progress. They avoid it like leprosy.

[grimm]

"id never join a club that would have me as a member"

[RawAlex]

Buff, you can be so "junior high" at times. Part of my personal preference for Kerry is a deep distrust (bordering on hatred) for Bush and everything he stands for. It might be hard for you to understand, but Kerry is saying exactly the things that can get the rest of the world to get back in the game. It might be beyond your understanding how important this is, I know that the old "shoot 'em all and let allah sort them out" mentality runs deep. But in the end, you get much more done when the gang is with you than you do by yourself.

As for the debate itself, I think that I would score it about 70 - 30... Bush looked confused, spent way too long on the defence, and kept answering the same things over and over again. Those things might play well on the evening news, but sound bites don't make a debate. I suspect his team is going to give him a HUGE makeover before the next event.

I also think Bush was very transparent in his attempts not to answer direct questions. Again, that sort of redirection might play well in sound bites, but put into context, it really looks evasive.

Kerry needs to learn some shorter words. He tended to get a little wordy.

Alex

[Buff]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Sep 30 2004, 09:53 PM
Buff, you can be so "junior high" at times. Part of my personal preference for Kerry is a deep distrust (bordering on hatred) for Bush and everything he stands for. It might be hard for you to understand, but Kerry is saying exactly the things that can get the rest of the world to get back in the game. It might be beyond your understanding how important this is, I know that the old "shoot 'em all and let allah sort them out" mentality runs deep. But in the end, you get much more done when the gang is with you than you do by yourself.

As for the debate itself, I think that I would score it about 70 - 30... Bush looked confused, spent way too long on the defence, and kept answering the same things over and over again. Those things might play well on the evening news, but sound bites don't make a debate. I suspect his team is going to give him a HUGE makeover before the next event.

I also think Bush was very transparent in his attempts not to answer direct questions. Again, that sort of redirection might play well in sound bites, but put into context, it really looks evasive.

Kerry needs to learn some shorter words. He tended to get a little wordy.

Alex
But you trust Kerry, right? Because he's an honest politician.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by grimm+Sep 30 2004, 10:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ Sep 30 2004, 10:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Sep 30 2004, 07:09 PM
Yes, Buffy, there were lots of people in Junior High School who were challenged enough in the vocabulary department that the smartest retort they could come up with is "eat a dick." I felt sorry for 12 & 13 year olds that could do any better than that; as I have suggested before, a private-school educated ADULT who can't do any better than that ought to find himself an evil trial lawyer and sue to recoop his tuition., because he obviously didn't get much for his money.

As far as whether I complied or not, don't see how that matters one bit. However, if it makes you feel more macho to challenge me on that score, you go, girlfriend.

Regarding the rest of your claptrap, I've heard it all before. Kennedy (then LBJ) was taking God out of the very same classrooms he was putting the niggers into. Roosevelt was going to turn America into another Soviet Union. Andrew Jackson was going to destroy America by letting commoners vote - which is I suspect a big objection of yours, actually.
so you are pro segregation, and for church in school.


Ladies and Gentlemen, George Wallace. Ho do you gt DSL in your cabin in the woods? Those are two issues that are at the stage they are at for a reason. church doesnot belong in school for a REASON. Integration happened for a REASON. ts called progress. Neocon republicans share the same boat with Osama Bin Ladin when it comes to Progress. They avoid it like leprosy. [/b][/quote]
Grimm, no offense, but reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point.

I am about as far removed from supporting segregation, religion in schools, or anything related to the neocon agenda as you can get.

The point I was trying to make is that I heard many of the same arguments the Ostrich Society (too smart/hip/cool/intelligent/detached to vote, so I'll stick my head in the sand) and the Gloom'nDoomers (both parties are corrupt, no point in voting for either, America is going to hell in a handbasket) make for as long as I've been alive - and any halfassed study of American history will tell you that both schools of "thought" [sic] have been around for a long, long time.

[Dravyk]

I think the most important thing here is ...




... that Grimm's avatar looks like Christopher Walken to me.

[RawAlex]

Buff, I would expect the leader of the free world to be able to answer simple questions. I would expect him to at least make a passing attempt to answer questions as asked.

I saw little of that in Bush. Instead I heard "flip flop" and "change position" over and over. Few ideas, attempts at zingers, and a bunch of "umm" and "ahh"...

Kerry stayed pretty darn composed, and I think won the night handily.

Alex

[pushpills]

Originally posted by Dravyk@Sep 30 2004, 11:44 PM
I think the most important thing here is ...




... that Grimm's avatar looks like Christopher Walken to me.
LOL it does!

[Buff]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Sep 30 2004, 11:51 PM
Buff, I would expect the leader of the free world to be able to answer simple questions. I would expect him to at least make a passing attempt to answer questions as asked.

I saw little of that in Bush. Instead I heard "flip flop" and "change position" over and over. Few ideas, attempts at zingers, and a bunch of "umm" and "ahh"...

Kerry stayed pretty darn composed, and I think won the night handily.

Alex
Bush demonstrated that he's one-trick pony who speaks so poorly in public that he deserves to be mocked for it.

Kerry demonstrated a notion of foreign policy so naive and unrealistic that he deserves to be mocked for it.

I can understand if you consider one of these dipshits to be less worse than the other and therefore want to choose the lesser of two evils as apparently PD the junior high fellator does, but the idea that you would actively support one of these assclowns is nauseating.

[cj]

*shudder*

My opinion and Buff's opinion have some how looped so far in the opposite direction they have merged :unsure:

If I had the option not to vote, I wouldn't, because the 'voting for lesser of 2 evils' has made a joke of democracy. The elections are won through corporations & which puppet can get the most funding from the control freaks in Texas.

Here's were Buff & I differ *Phew* ... whereas he wants to pick up some guns and go blow up random people until he hits the right one, I would rather smell the flowers than blow them up.

All I can say is thank god I was born into a country that at least pretends to have a democracy (australia & america are both the same in this respect) & that has food and water ... instead of the Middle East, Africa, China, or any of the other places humans are lucky to live to the age I am now or experience basic human rights.

The best thing we can all do with our lives is to get on with living it, enjoy the time we have as much as we can and leave the shit to the assholes. Anything else is disrespectful to those who aren't so fortunate.

[grimm]

Originally posted by Buff+Sep 30 2004, 08:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Sep 30 2004, 08:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RawAlex@Sep 30 2004, 09:53 PM
Buff, you can be so "junior high" at times. Part of my personal preference for Kerry is a deep distrust (bordering on hatred) for Bush and everything he stands for. It might be hard for you to understand, but Kerry is saying exactly the things that can get the rest of the world to get back in the game. It might be beyond your understanding how important this is, I know that the old "shoot 'em all and let allah sort them out" mentality runs deep. But in the end, you get much more done when the gang is with you than you do by yourself.

As for the debate itself, I think that I would score it about 70 - 30... Bush looked confused, spent way too long on the defence, and kept answering the same things over and over again. Those things might play well on the evening news, but sound bites don't make a debate. I suspect his team is going to give him a HUGE makeover before the next event.

I also think Bush was very transparent in his attempts not to answer direct questions. Again, that sort of redirection might play well in sound bites, but put into context, it really looks evasive.

Kerry needs to learn some shorter words. He tended to get a little wordy.

Alex
But you trust Kerry, right? Because he's an honest politician. [/b][/quote]
oxymoron

[grimm]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Sep 30 2004, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Sep 30 2004, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by grimm@Sep 30 2004, 10:47 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Sep 30 2004, 07:09 PM
Yes, Buffy, there were lots of people in Junior High School who were challenged enough in the vocabulary department that the smartest retort they could come up with is "eat a dick." I felt sorry for 12 & 13 year olds that could do any better than that; as I have suggested before, a private-school educated ADULT who can't do any better than that ought to find himself an evil trial lawyer and sue to recoop his tuition., because he obviously didn't get much for his money.

As far as whether I complied or not, don't see how that matters one bit. However, if it makes you feel more macho to challenge me on that score, you go, girlfriend.

Regarding the rest of your claptrap, I've heard it all before. Kennedy (then LBJ) was taking God out of the very same classrooms he was putting the niggers into. Roosevelt was going to turn America into another Soviet Union. Andrew Jackson was going to destroy America by letting commoners vote - which is I suspect a big objection of yours, actually.
so you are pro segregation, and for church in school.


Ladies and Gentlemen, George Wallace. Ho do you gt DSL in your cabin in the woods? Those are two issues that are at the stage they are at for a reason. church doesnot belong in school for a REASON. Integration happened for a REASON. ts called progress. Neocon republicans share the same boat with Osama Bin Ladin when it comes to Progress. They avoid it like leprosy.
Grimm, no offense, but reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point.

I am about as far removed from supporting segregation, religion in schools, or anything related to the neocon agenda as you can get.

The point I was trying to make is that I heard many of the same arguments the Ostrich Society (too smart/hip/cool/intelligent/detached to vote, so I'll stick my head in the sand) and the Gloom'nDoomers (both parties are corrupt, no point in voting for either, America is going to hell in a handbasket) make for as long as I've been alive - and any halfassed study of American history will tell you that both schools of "thought" [sic] have been around for a long, long time. [/b][/quote]
none taken, i just missed your point. my reading comprehension is just fine, i just hear the same ole crap so much, i tend to skim.


So what is the solution per se? we get two choices to compromise our country. IT is well established that voting for outside parties is a "wasted vote" so why waste your time voting unless you are taking one of the big two.

Special interest wins again.

The Fear Zealots and Rich get their choice

Kerry is the unknown, and we cant have that.

So where do we go. Clinton was the unknown, and we got 8 good years in terms of what REALLY matters.

I am much more worried about kids on drugs and somebody breaking into my house than i am about terrorism. Terrorism is a tool, a crock of shit, the rhetoric has been run into the ground so much that the warning levels carry no weight.

granted, measures have worked, but AWARENESS is the greatest weapon, and i dont think it matters who sits in the oval office for that. American security is not a lynchpin issue. The pieces are in place. nothing wil chnge even if charlie brown ends up taking florida. I Hate, despise, cannot stand george bush for his Old boys club, buddy buddy, ignorance of the middle class. I dont know as much about Kerry, but hell i do know what bush did for four years...who would you vote for, 4 years of bad administration, or 4 years upcoming of questionable administration.


and the bigger question, why should we have to. we made a mistake (or there was some misdoing) 4 years ago, and we are paying the piper in the form of a shitty Nov 2 to look forward to.


my .02

[grimm]

Originally posted by Dravyk@Sep 30 2004, 09:44 PM
I think the most important thing here is ...




... that Grimm's avatar looks like Christopher Walken to me.
oh man, you havent seen that saturday night live skit?

http://www.aspyre.net/narra/archives/006764.html


they have the script and a link to the download.


More Cowbell Baby!

[Rolo]

I think overall Bush won, since 95% of the questions were on issues where Kerry is weak. Kerry didn´t come out as a more strong candidate on most of the Iraq questions, however he did have his moments - ex. on securing all nuclear materials in Russia, there he was precise, firm and to the point - if Kerry would stop the Iraq blame argument, and do more precise/constructive/short arguments, then he could win alot of the undecided voters.

It was too easy for Bush, since Kerry didn´t have the arguments to make him sweat on the Iraq issues.

I think the next one will be more interesting, since each camp will be analyzing this debate, and learning from it.

Scale from 1-10, where 10 is greatest:

Bush 5
Kerry 3

:biglaugh:

[pushpills]

Here's what the aol folk have to say. (I'm sure there's pleanty of underagers, non registered voters....but it is a poll afterall).

Who won the debate?
John Kerry 54%
George Bush 46%


Did it change the candidate you support?
No 72%
Yes, I now support Kerry 18%
Yes, I now support Bush 10%


Total Votes: 505,124

[JR]

"great googly moogly"

hahahaha.

[grimm]

i just caught a rerun of the debate.

and i say hands down, Kerry won.

Bushcould not answer for his own actions.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by grimm@Oct 1 2004, 05:57 AM
i just caught a rerun of the debate.

and i say hands down, Kerry won.

Bushcould not answer for his own actions.
Same here, Grimm. Just watched it. Kerry won.

[Rolo]

I think each candidate had several goals... Bush accomplished most of his goals (including not making a complete ass of himself ;-))), however Kerry missed several of his (ex. making his international politic clear).

What are your definition of winning a debate?

[RawAlex]

You win a debate when the other side cannot clearly answer and support their side. On that basis, Kerry won in a landslide.

As I mentioned at the top of this thread, Bush ain't very good at these things, and it showed. As soon as the discussion went away from his pre-recorded messages, he stumbled, he paused, he stuttered, and he talked in circles.

His "wrong war wrong place wrong time" message only goes to re-enforce the feels of many people, that it was the wrong war! Kerry having the balls to admit it will more than likely help to get the world to come back on to the US's side. The lone cowboy routine gets really dull after a while, and you know everyone tries to get the gunslinger.

Kerry SOUNDLY beat Bush (CNN poll gave Bush a "C" rating overall, Kerry a "B+" - based on public votes). He has vaulted himself right back into the campaign. Now it will be interesting to see what he does with it. It will also be interesting to see if Bush still wants to do the other debates.

Alex

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Oct 1 2004, 08:26 AM
You win a debate when the other side cannot clearly answer and support their side. On that basis, Kerry won in a landslide.


oh my....
Winning a debate is when the voters chose you over your opponent.

Nobody won shit in that debate,
Republicans are not switching sides,
Democrats are not switching sides and so far it's a draw,
despite what Canadien voters think
;-))))

[RawAlex]

Serge, if it was that simple, then there would be no election, just a membership drive. You forget that many (probably close to a majority) are not members of either party.

So there ya go.

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Rolo@Oct 1 2004, 07:36 AM
What are your definition of winning a debate?
Kerry is taller. He looked down at Bush when they shook hands like "Hey there, little guy". That's when Kerry won.

[Almighty Colin]

I think this morning's Gallup results rather clearly show how people viewed the debates.

Kery won the debate, Kerry is much more articulate, they understand the issues the same, Bush is more believable, Bush is more likable and Bush demonstrated he is tougher for the job.

Kerry kicked Bush's ass in the debate. This seems to be largely based upon how articulate Kerry is as people were evenly divided over their opinion of their understanding of the issues. Bush won on the points that are giving him an advantage going into the election. He's believable, he's likable, he's tough enough for the job. I guess being from Texas beats being a war hero. That's good marketing.

[Buff]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Oct 1 2004, 07:26 AM
You win a debate when the other side cannot clearly answer and support their side. On that basis, Kerry won in a landslide.

As I mentioned at the top of this thread, Bush ain't very good at these things, and it showed. As soon as the discussion went away from his pre-recorded messages, he stumbled, he paused, he stuttered, and he talked in circles.

His "wrong war wrong place wrong time" message only goes to re-enforce the feels of many people, that it was the wrong war! Kerry having the balls to admit it will more than likely help to get the world to come back on to the US's side. The lone cowboy routine gets really dull after a while, and you know everyone tries to get the gunslinger.

Kerry SOUNDLY beat Bush (CNN poll gave Bush a "C" rating overall, Kerry a "B+" - based on public votes). He has vaulted himself right back into the campaign. Now it will be interesting to see what he does with it. It will also be interesting to see if Bush still wants to do the other debates.

Alex
Kerry didn't exactly have a good answer to how he's going to talk the French into supporting "a great diversion" and "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." Nor did he have a good answer to his continually changing position on the threat Hussein posed and how to deal with it.

To say he SOUNDLY beat Bush is to demonstrate silly partisanship. I think he beat Bush, but I don't think it was masterful. Like I said, he missed some real opportunities to bury Bush. He could have worked that mumble-mouthed idiot like a 12 year old school girl in Beijing. Did you ever see the 2000 Republican Debates -- McCain, Bush, and Keyes? Alan Keyes made Bush look like a retarded monkey. It was so bad people were groaning. We were laughing at Bush. He got tooled.

Kerry had the chance to do the same thing. He could have bodyslammed Bush. He didn't. Like I said, if you want to see what a rhetorical beating is, go look at what Keyes did to Bush. No comparison.

Alex, my guess is that if a video surfaced of Kerry fucking a 6 year old boy in the ass while snorting coke off his back and then shooting him in the head when he was done, you'd try to justify it.

[Buff]

Anyone who wants to see and read about Bush really getting his ass handed to him in debates should check this link out:

http://www.renewamerica.us/keyes/debates.htm

Here's an idea of what Keyes did to Bush (keep in mind that Bush had a huge Republican following who was going to vote for him no matter how badly he lost, kind of like Alex would do for Kerry no matter how poorly he performs):

2000 Republican presidential debate polls

(Polls conducted by Vote.com)

Who won the March 2, 2000, Republican debate?

George W. Bush (6,430 votes) 53%
Alan Keyes (4,210 votes) 34%
John McCain (1,586 votes) 13%


Who won the February 15, 2000, Republican debate?

Alan Keyes (10,542 votes) 44%
George W. Bush (9,374 votes) 39%
John McCain (4,157 votes) 17%


Who won the January 26, 2000, Republican debate?

Alan Keyes (5,715 votes) 47%
George W. Bush (3,711 votes) 30%
Steve Forbes (1,505 votes) 12%
John McCain (1,152 votes) 9%
Gary Bauer (157 votes) 1%


Who won the January 15, 2000, Republican debate?

Alan Keyes (3,929 votes) 54%
George W. Bush (2,279 votes) 31%
John McCain (673 votes) 9%
Steve Forbes (222 votes) 3%
Gary Bauer (92 votes) 1%
Orrin Hatch (90 votes) 1%


Who won the January 10, 2000, Republican debate?

Alan Keyes (6,462 votes) 50%
George W. Bush (4,393 votes) 34%
John McCain (1,320 votes) 10%
Steve Forbes (322 votes) 3%
Gary Bauer (187 votes) 1%
Orrin Hatch (187 votes) 1%


Who won the January 7, 2000, Republican debate?

Alan Keyes (3,480 votes) 44%
George W. Bush (3,327 votes) 42%
John McCain (753 votes) 9%
Steve Forbes (214 votes) 3%
Gary Bauer (111 votes) 1%
Orrin Hatch (110 votes) 1%


Who won the January 6, 2000, Republican debate?

Alan Keyes (5,599 votes) 46%
George W. Bush (4,528 votes) 37%
John McCain (1,276 votes) 10%
Steve Forbes (335 votes) 3%
Orrin Hatch (249 votes) 2%
Gary Bauer (181 votes) 1%


Who won the December 13, 1999, Republican debate?

Alan Keyes (11,551 votes) 42%
George W. Bush (10,713 votes) 39%
John McCain (3,460 votes) 13%
Steve Forbes (954 votes) 3%
Orrin Hatch (619 votes) 2%
Gary Bauer (380 votes) 1%


Who won the December 6, 1999, Republican debate?

Alan Keyes (14,201 votes) 57%
George W. Bush (5,296 votes) 21%
John McCain (3,282 votes) 13%
Steve Forbes (1,335 votes) 5%
Gary Bauer (387 votes) 2%
Orrin Hatch (383 votes) 2%


Who won the December 2, 1999, Republican debate?

Alan Keyes (19,158 votes) 45%
George W. Bush (12,136 votes) 29%
John McCain (7,412 votes) 17%
Steve Forbes (2,735 votes) 6%
Gary Bauer (608 votes) 1%
Orrin Hatch (477 votes) 1%

Trancripts of the debates: http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/debates.htm

[Evil Chris]

Of all the political threads/debates I have seen here on Oprano, I can say that I have never seen anyone as angry as Buff with his own country's government.

Buff, you would be a very happy Canadian.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Oct 1 2004, 08:20 AM
Of all the political threads/debates I have seen here on Oprano, I can say that I have never seen anyone as angry as Buff with his own country's government.

Buff, you would be a very happy Canadian.
Chris, I just find it amusing that people are arguing about how great Kerry and Bush are, when the reality are that they're both incompetent and unfit to be President.

I mean, Bush cannot even speak. It's just sad. Kerry can be on 5 sides of a 2 sided issue and Bush doesn't have the competency to pummel him successful for it.

And Kerry was debating a guy whom most people here, judging by their posts, think is an idiot. If that's the best he can do against an idiot, how great can he be?

Doesn't this make sense?

[Evil Chris]

Originally posted by Buff+Oct 1 2004, 10:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Oct 1 2004, 10:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Evil Chris@Oct 1 2004, 08:20 AM
Of all the political threads/debates I have seen here on Oprano, I can say that I have never seen anyone as angry as Buff with his own country's government.

Buff, you would be a very happy Canadian.
Chris, I just find it amusing that people are arguing about how great Kerry and Bush are, when the reality are that they're both incompetent and unfit to be President.

I mean, Bush cannot even speak. It's just sad. Kerry can be on 5 sides of a 2 sided issue and Bush doesn't have the competency to pummel him successful for it.

And Kerry was debating a guy whom most people here, judging by their posts, think is an idiot. If that's the best he can do against an idiot, how great can he be?

Doesn't this make sense? [/b][/quote]
Well as you know, I am not even a US citizen. I'm Canadian.
So my views are somewhat of an outsider looking in.

Could it be that John Kerry simply hasn't lowered himself to Bush's level?
I haven't seen him slinging anywhere near the amount of mud that Bush throws at the Dems and Kerry.

I'll be straight up with you. I don't know a lot about Kerry's political track record or background. I'm not sure why you think he's such an idiot, but it's probably because I don't know enough about the man.

Fact remains that the rest of the world is distancing themselves from the US. The UK is a somewhat reluctant friend. Kerry's plan involves getting back to better relations with the UN and the rest of the free world. I think that's a very positive move.

[RawAlex]

Buff, makes perfect sense.... so why do you want to re-elect the idiot?

Oh yeah, I checked the polls this morning. Every one I saw had Kerry spanking Bush...

Alex

[Buff]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Oct 1 2004, 08:59 AM
Buff, makes perfect sense.... so why do you want to re-elect the idiot?

Oh yeah, I checked the polls this morning. Every one I saw had Kerry spanking Bush...

Alex
Why do I what??? Alex, open your mind. I can hate Kerry without supporting Bush. In fact, and pay attention here, I can hate BOTH Kerry and Bush. As a libertarian, guess what? I DO! I don't want Bush to win re-election, and I don't want Kerry to win election.

[XXXPhoto]

Originally posted by Buff+Oct 1 2004, 07:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Oct 1 2004, 07:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RawAlex@Oct 1 2004, 08:59 AM
Buff, makes perfect sense.... so why do you want to re-elect the idiot?

Oh yeah, I checked the polls this morning. Every one I saw had Kerry spanking Bush...

Alex
Why do I what??? Alex, open your mind. I can hate Kerry without supporting Bush. In fact, and pay attention here, I can hate BOTH Kerry and Bush. As a libertarian, guess what? I DO! I don't want Bush to win re-election, and I don't want Kerry to win election. [/b][/quote]
Buff,

Then you are kinda SOL ain't cha?

[Buff]

Originally posted by XXXPhoto+Oct 1 2004, 12:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (XXXPhoto @ Oct 1 2004, 12:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Buff@Oct 1 2004, 07:14 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-RawAlex@Oct 1 2004, 08:59 AM
Buff, makes perfect sense.... so why do you want to re-elect the idiot?

Oh yeah, I checked the polls this morning. Every one I saw had Kerry spanking Bush...

Alex
Why do I what??? Alex, open your mind. I can hate Kerry without supporting Bush. In fact, and pay attention here, I can hate BOTH Kerry and Bush. As a libertarian, guess what? I DO! I don't want Bush to win re-election, and I don't want Kerry to win election.
Buff,

Then you are kinda SOL ain't cha? [/b][/quote]
Yes.

[grimm]

Originally posted by Buff+Oct 1 2004, 07:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Oct 1 2004, 07:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RawAlex@Oct 1 2004, 08:59 AM
Buff, makes perfect sense.... so why do you want to re-elect the idiot?

Oh yeah, I checked the polls this morning. Every one I saw had Kerry spanking Bush...

Alex
Why do I what??? Alex, open your mind. I can hate Kerry without supporting Bush. In fact, and pay attention here, I can hate BOTH Kerry and Bush. As a libertarian, guess what? I DO! I don't want Bush to win re-election, and I don't want Kerry to win election. [/b][/quote]
"libertarian" is a cop out

libertarian is just someone who demonstrates free will,


its political attachment is one who beleives in individual rights, not garnered by the state or country.

we are all libertarians, but a libertarian cannot exist in a representative democracy. You canot cast your ballot for anyone but yourself and call yourself a libertarian.

hence, the copout. you have defined yourself in an impossible corner of a system of government. you have created an ad infinitum argument with no political solution other than revolution. The only acceptable goal of such revolution is Anarchy. The most likely goal of such revolution is the splintering of a nation, i.e. the U.S.S.R.


Paint a pretty picture?

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Oct 1 2004, 08:40 AM
Serge, if it was that simple, then there would be no election, just a membership drive. You forget that many (probably close to a majority) are not members of either party.

So there ya go.

Alex
Alex,
is Canadien politics bores you to death?
I NEVER seen you discuss Canadien politics with fellow Canadiens....

Do you care about Canadien politics? What are your thoughts on Separatise Movement in Quebec?

If your knowlege of USA politics is better than local,
you can skip the subject.

[RawAlex]

Serge, you are 28 years late on asking the seperation question. The masses have been polled and twice have said no.

Canadian politics is fairly simple and straight forward. But we aren't "the superpower", we aren't the world's self appointed police man, and whoever is in the whitehouse is going to make decisions that will directly affect me. So US politics is much more interesting.

Buff, ou get choice A, choice B, or STFU (or Nader in some places, which is the same thing). You have to choose. If you choose NEITHER NOR, then you have just increased the power of someone else's vote.

Alex

[Rolo]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Oct 1 2004, 03:28 PM
But we aren't "the superpower", we aren't the world's self appointed police man...
Alex, stop downplaying Canada - its obvious that Canada is a "closet superpower" - everyone know how Canada are using/flexing their "military muscles" in its quest for Canadian imperialism:


"Exercise Narwhal" (1) -- the name for the exercises that all three branches of Canada's military have recently conducted in the north between August 12 and 31, 2004, the largest ever of such maneuvers -- was beaten back by storms, winds and other acts of the Arctic's many beautiful miracles...
...

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin recently concluded a trip to the Arctic. (2) While he was on his four day tour through the Yukon, Northwest Territories (NWT) and Nunavut, he proclaimed "I've always loved the North." Well, since visiting the Arctic in 2003 I would have to agree with that much, but for rather different reasons. What caused this sudden pilgrimage to the "last frontier?" In the 19th Century, it was to mine gold. Now, it's drilling for natural gas (the largest deposits untapped on the planet), oil (again, huge untapped reserves) as well as the largest supply of non-African diamonds found on the earth. All of these reasons would be plenty, but there is far more than that alone at stake. The "benefits" of global warming that Herb Dhaliwal (former PM Jean Chretien's Minister of Natural Resources) once explicitly welcomed are nearly here: the ice packs are melting and technology is improving -- both at a breakneck speed. This is opening up a Northwest Passage route -- the very one that many early white settlers perished trying in vain to find or carve over two centuries ago and multiple times since. When this happens in full, it will be the single greatest revolution in global shipping routes since the Panama Canal was dug by the men who died in the thousands in what is now a permanent American base (legally returned to Panama in 1999). There's a hitch, however. In fact, there are four hitches, and all of them are border disputes.

There are two with the United States (Alaska), one with Russia, and the most divisive is actually with Denmark (Greenland). The United States has already declared that the Northern route would be international waters and not subject to the sovereignty of any state. What Canada is doing with the military is good ol' fashioned gunboat diplomacy, albeit symbolic, and it is being carried out on several targets.

Islands in the north have fuzzy determinations of who owns what; many have never been recorded as the "official" territory of any state. Since international law states a country maintains sovereignty of waters three miles from land, determining where in the Arctic Ocean borders must be drawn -- and therefore who will run and maintain this radically shorter transport route for eastern Asia to Europe, Atlantic Turtle Island to Asia, and Pacific Turtle Island to Europe -- becomes a geopolitical question of gigantic significance. The British imperialists have noted for centuries: whoever controls the seas controls the global economy. Hans Island, in between Greenland/Denmark and Ellesmere Island/Canada, is just such an example. The Danish navy months ago dispatched a Dane flag to the rock using a naval warship to do so, and Canada plans to do much the same. Though a true military "solution" is next to impossible, tempers have flared and relations have been strained, with Canada issuing a diplomatic protest. (3)

Before the passage opens up, Canadian imperialism needs to assert sovereignty over these islands. However, the sovereignty battle isn't merely with these other imperial states, but mainly with the nations who have lived there for thousands upon thousands of years. They face extinction, cultural and physical, with the Canadian state and their continued efforts to build a pipeline through the entire 1700 kilometer long Mackenzie Valley....

http://www.swans.com/library/art10/mstain01.html

I think its about time Canadian imperialism gets a closer look - or should we wait for the Canadian Army to attack NATO allies? :zoinks:

;-)

[grimm]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Oct 1 2004, 05:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Oct 1 2004, 05:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RawAlex@Oct 1 2004, 08:26 AM
You win a debate when the other side cannot clearly answer and support their side. On that basis, Kerry won in a landslide.


oh my....
Winning a debate is when the voters chose you over your opponent.

Nobody won shit in that debate,
Republicans are not switching sides,
Democrats are not switching sides and so far it's a draw,
despite what Canadien voters think
;-)))) [/b][/quote]
this from s hadliner;)

[RawAlex]

Rolo, nice piece, except for the credit:

"Macdonald Stainsby is a 29-year-old student, freelance writer, and social justice activist living in Montreal, Quebec, and studying at Concordia University. "

29 year old student activist? Is that the best you could come up with? I have seen what student activists do... they go to summits and start riots.

Alex

[Rolo]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Oct 2 2004, 12:39 PM
I have seen what student activists do... they go to summits and start riots.
Please, do not blame me for the products produced by the offsprings of the canadian educational system ;-))

But truth is that canadians are now using possible "terror" as the excuse for making moves in the Arctic - yes, we should all fear the "Arctic terrorism" (sounds familiar??)


YELLOWKNIFE - Terrorism is usually "the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about," said Ron Huebert from the Centre for Military and Strategic studies, during a panel on security at the Northern Research Forum meeting in Yellowknife.

The discussion was intended to focus on broader security issues, but speakers ended up talking more about the threat of terrorism and what this means to the circumpolar world.

Arctic terrorism is possible, Huebert said, because the region is a potential entry point for terrorists, and remains strategically important.

Yet terrorism is just one of the possible threats that circumpolar regions and residents face to their security.

These also include climate change, pollution and resource development, which all have the potential to affect the security of states, the environment and people in the Arctic.

"The challenge for those who call the North home and for policy-makers is determining which are the main threats to northern security. The question that remains is how this can be done," Huebert said.

For climate change, some suggested setting up a kind of community-based "early warning" network across the circumpolar perimeter.

Using the military to respond to traditional security threats is still an option, Huebert said.

But he suggested diplomacy will likely be the response to what he called several "dangerous" threats to Canadian security and sovereignty.

These include ongoing disputes over who owns Hans Island, a tiny island located between Ellesmere Island and Greenland, or the Arctic continental shelf marine region near the Beaufort Sea.

http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/40924_06.html

Canada is on a confrontation path with its neighbours... trying to use force, so Canada can get its hands on the "oil" and trade in the Arctic.... yup, its all about money - I wonder how many canadian politicians have money invested in this. Atleast they are not trying to make it look like they are freeing the eskimos from the evil danish vikings... well, atleast not yet!

Canadian imperialists :stout:

[RawAlex]

The difference between Canada and the US:

"Using the military to respond to traditional security threats is still an option, Huebert said.

But he suggested diplomacy will likely be the response to what he called several "dangerous" threats to Canadian security and sovereignty."

Yup... diplomacy. Not MOABs.

Anyway, nice distraction techniques by the republican side... so Kerry won the dabate hands down. What is it like to support a confused and befuddled President?

Alex

[Rolo]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Oct 2 2004, 01:54 PM
Yup... diplomacy. Not MOABs.
The US did 12 YEARS of diplomacy, before the 2nd gulf war... I wonder if Canada will have the same patience... will Canada sit by for 12 years, if evil vikings were to have eskimos on Hans Island - making them live in igloos, so they each day can watch over the danish flags planted all over the island - or will Canada send in its military to remove the vikings and eskimos by using force... vikings and eskimos who happende to be members of NATO.

Today the warmongers in Ottawa are building up the military in the Arctic because of "Arctic terrorism" - do they really think that more military will solve the situation? No, the Arctic will just be an area where the opponents of a Canadian presence can recruit supporters.

The top performing stocks in Canada are in the mining and oil industries - industries who will make alot of money, if Canada is to control the Arctic...

These are valid questions and should concern every Canadian who can vote!

[RawAlex]

Rolo, the question always is:

In Iraq, what SUDDENLY CHANGED to make military action an absolute requirement? How did you end up with ONLY the military option left?

Rolo, your "warmongers in the arctic" is fucking hilarious. You really need to stop smoking or snorting whatever that stuff is, because it is making you goofy! Our military will protect our borders, but we are not warmongers.

Get a grip, answer the questions instead.

Alex

[Rolo]

Either the Hans Island issue is a "Wag the Dog" public attention stunt (look how strong our goverment is), or Canadian politicians are really meaning what they are saying - ex. Stockwell Day from the opposition saying:


The nation of Denmark has laid claim to Canadian territory. Its military, from its warship, hoisted its flag on our Arctic territory without permission, without warning, and without any fear of being stopped.


Now ofcourse the issue about Hans Island is amusing to me, since its a perfect example on how the same issue can be looked at from different point of views, and it just adds to the story that in this issue its Canada who is the "big", "aggressive" part... who would have tought that Canada would be driven by things like greed and power in international issues - I´m guessing everyone else, but a few canadians ;-))

So as Jesus said "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone" ;-)))

To answer your Iraq question, then I hope there were more than 1 reason why military action was required - you do not go to war over 1.3 mile of rock in the arctic without having more than the rock to fight for. Also like every other war in history, then objectives are changed depending on how the war is going... what might have been good reasons for invading 1½ years ago, have probably been modified/replaced by other good reasons for staying today.

[Almighty Colin]

Rolo, I've never seen you funny. This is the most amusing argument I've seen in a few months ;-)

Alex, I know your opinion on Kerry. I'm interested in what ways you think Bush outperformed Kerry in the debate.

The issue for Democrats is that once again they don't intend to vote proportionally. There are more Democrats in the US than Republicans but Republicans are more likely to vote in this election.

[Rolo]

Originally posted by Colin@Oct 3 2004, 05:33 AM
Rolo, I've never seen you funny.
Prehaps difference of perception? However the truth is that my punchlines are always too weak, too late, and misunderstood - I´m not a funny board guy :)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Rolo+Oct 3 2004, 09:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rolo @ Oct 3 2004, 09:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Oct 3 2004, 05:33 AM
Rolo, I've never seen you funny.
Prehaps difference of perception? However the truth is that my punchlines are always too weak, too late, and misunderstood - I´m not a funny board guy :) [/b][/quote]
All I know is that in one post you managed to combine evil vikings, eskimos, igloos, NATO, Ottowan warmongers, "arctic terrorism" and the imagery of danish flags all over the island.

Even Alex thinks your funny and he has no sense of humor ;-) ;-) *

*j/k Alex, Keep sending the traffic ;-)

[RawAlex]

Colin, I think Bush's strongest point was re-using the single phrase "wrong war, wrong time"etc over and over during the debate. He was strong at redirecting questions to the subjects or themes he wanted to talk about. His prepared answers on subjects, when they hit exactly on what he had prepared were clear, using short words that the average voter could understand.

Do you remember the "who is going to win the debate" thread? I posted (before the debate):

Mike, actually, Bush's weakest spot is "non scripted" situations. Bush is a VERY poor orator without a script (rumor had it that his early scripts when running for govenor in texas included prompts when to smile). If Kerry can lead him even a little off of his scripted answers, I think you will see Bush go down hard.

Kerry did as I expected, and Bush reacted EXACTLY as expected. Bush will be remembered in this debate as the stuttering, confused, and often SILENT adversary... a man that truly did not look to be in charge of the facts.

Alex

[Buff]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Oct 3 2004, 10:36 AM
Colin, I think Bush's strongest point was re-using the single phrase "wrong war, wrong time"etc over and over during the debate. He was strong at redirecting questions to the subjects or themes he wanted to talk about. His prepared answers on subjects, when they hit exactly on what he had prepared were clear, using short words that the average voter could understand.

Do you remember the "who is going to win the debate" thread? I posted (before the debate):

Mike, actually, Bush's weakest spot is "non scripted" situations. Bush is a VERY poor orator without a script (rumor had it that his early scripts when running for govenor in texas included prompts when to smile). If Kerry can lead him even a little off of his scripted answers, I think you will see Bush go down hard.

Kerry did as I expected, and Bush reacted EXACTLY as expected. Bush will be remembered in this debate as the stuttering, confused, and often SILENT adversary... a man that truly did not look to be in charge of the facts.

Alex
I thought Bush overused that phrase. I thought he only had one strong moment in the whole debate and that was when he quoted Kerry and showed that he flip flopped on Iraq. Bush really didn't look like he wanted to be there. I guess he has something better to do than try to convince the American people that he knows what he's doing -- too bad for him, because only 39% of people think he has a clear strategy on Iraq as opposed to 52% for Kerry. That was Bush's strong issue.

He better get his shit together if he wants to win -- this election, like Colin says, is up for grabs.