Presidential Debate Opinions

[98goldbird]

I still don't understand how you can guarantee to win the war in Iraq in 4 years??? Sorry terrorists do not play by the rules and war in general is too unpredictable to guarantee anything....

Yah, that made me laugh as well. "I FAUGHT IN VIETNAM AND I WILL LEAD US OUT OF IRAQ!"

[MustangEater8251]

Am I the only one who doesn't care about their war record? I mean honestly, pretty much anyone who makes it to president had a little money in the family. Which likely means they were bought "easier" assignments then the average person shipped off to Vietnam.

I care if they can lead the country, not if they can not get sniped in the jungle.

[jc Kyle]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123733/?GT1=5402

i thought kerry did have a better debate, made better points. Bush seemed to over generalize what kerry was saying.. saying that Kerry switches sides on things.. while Kerry had to clarify what he meant. Bush kept repeating the same thing and sounded rather foolish.

Also, when Kerry spoke, Bush made faces, snickered, and rolled his eyes. When Bush spoke, Kerry looked at him intently, took notes, nodded when the President made points. I dunno, based off that, Bush seemed like a whiny baby while Kerry was standing up to what Bush had to say

[LARRYfireBIRD33]

Actually Bush corrected Kerry, saying he forgot Poland, when in fact, the incumbant President was mistaken himself. Poland WAS NOT involved in the original ground invasion. Surprised our President doesn't even know who was involved.

[token sebring]

i think my favorite was when Bush said "They attacked us so we went to war with them (Iraq)" and Kerry said, no, Al Quada attacked us and you went after Iraq"... and bush responded like a whiny little boy "I know who attacked us!"

funny no one mentioned Saudi since most of the attackers were from there!

Kerry started off really stiff and nervous, and Bush relaxed and calm, but that swapped after about 20 minutes or so... in the end, I thought Kerry came across a lot better and looked a lot more presidential.

It bothers me that people twist what kerry says to say he flip flops... what he's saying is that based on the information he was given at the time before we went to war, he agreed to allow the president to go to war as a last resort. He doesn't agree that it was done in the correct manner, but since it was, he'll at least agree that the world is better without saddam in control, but not that that would have been his first priority. But since it's messed up now, there's no way but forward to go... and he takes the new information received over time to change tactics, while Bush just keeps going like everything's just peachy and refuses to change tactics. just my opinion though.

[ October 01, 2004, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: token sebring ]

[Skapimp]

The debates were funny... anyone else catch the blank looks on Bush's face when he didn't know what the hell to say? It's classic. I hope the debates help people to realize that maybe it's time for a change of power.

[imported_admin]

Originally posted by MrCoffee:
I liked how Kerry was up there with the calm and collected stature. and some of the things he said did bring up good points.
But I loved the way my man George W was up there with the "b!tch I run this shyt"

Bush runs this country like a freight train. He has the "charge in, guns blazing, we'll give 'em both barrels" attitude... which is fine if you're a star in a Western movie but the man running the world's most powerful country needs something a little more... A BRAIN.

(NOTE FOR THE RECORD: I am NOT a Democrat. I am a traditional conservative who is for small-town values, limited government, and reduced Federal spending. I have turned against Bush in the past 2 years because he shows none of those traditional conservative qualities.)

Sure, Bush won the Iraqi war. Big whoop. What did you expect, that we'd lose?

But Bush can't win the peace.

Its getting worse by the day, and all Bush is promising is more of the same. "We will stay our course, we will be resolute blah blah blah". Well, then more and more American civilians will be beheaded, more and more innocent Iraqis will be blown up by suicide bombers, more and more American dollars will be pissed away in a futile effort.

Winning the war and the subsequent peace takes a lot more than firepower... it takes strategy, diplomacy, reaching out to the Muslim world, and strong alliances. What happened to the ring of 20+ countries that were at America's side before Bush came along? How many countries besides Great Britian sent more than a few hundred troops? You call that a coalition? No. The rest of the world wasn't convinced, so Bush said "f 'em" and charged in anyway with his typical bullheaded macho attitude.

Where has that gotten us today? More and more American servicemen are dying over there because Bush is convinced that if you bully them enough eventually they'll give in. He's dead wrong and its causing thousands of innocent people to die. He has NO concept of the extremist militant mind. They do NOT give in to brute force. Thanks to his "stalwart" attitude he is PROVOKING them to attack again and again. Every time I hear that people were killed by terrorists in Iraq, I hope Bush realizes that HE caused those deaths.

The psycho terrorist suicide bombers will not stop unless something changes. More of the same will not work. "Staying the course" is simply not an option!

Change is needed. The rest of the world hates Bush and his "America is the big badass of the world" attitude. They won't cooperate until a new leader is in power. This applies to both our allies and our enemies.

REPEAT: I am not a Democrat. I am not necessarily a fan of Kerry. But I strongly believe in the concept of "anyone but Bush". Kerry isn't perfect... but he won't lead us headfirst and alone into World War III, which is exactly what Bush is doing.

[Infernal]

Originally posted by token sebring:
i think my favorite was when Bush said "They attacked us so we went to war with them (Iraq)" and Kerry said, no, Al Quada attacked us and you went after Iraq"... and bush responded like a whiny little boy "I know who attacked us!"

funny no one mentioned Saudi since most of the attackers were from there!

Kerry started off really stiff and nervous, and Bush relaxed and calm, but that swapped after about 20 minutes or so... in the end, I thought Kerry came across a lot better and looked a lot more presidential.

It bothers me that people twist what kerry says to say he flip flops... what he's saying is that based on the information he was given at the time before we went to war, he agreed to allow the president to go to war as a last resort. He doesn't agree that it was done in the correct manner, but since it was, he'll at least agree that the world is better without saddam in control, but not that that would have been his first priority. But since it's messed up now, there's no way but forward to go... and he takes the new information received over time to change tactics, while Bush just keeps going like everything's just peachy and refuses to change tactics. just my opinion though.

He does flip-flop. He accuses the president of lying to the American people, yet he uses the same "excuse" Bush uses for his vote for military action -- the information they were given was bad.

Then he comes out and states that given the same information and circumstances, he would have made the same choices as Bush. But, wait, didn't he say Bush lied to the American people? Confusing, isn't it?

He says he voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it, then, just last night, he said repeatedly that he would make sure the troops would have everything they needed and actually accused the president of under-funding them. When Bush challenged him on his negative vote for the 87 billion, Kerry said almost in the same breath both that he supported the troops in every way and that his vote was his way of protesting against the action ... that he voted for.

He rips into Bush for not forming a strong enough alliance, but then in the same debate goes on to accuse him of mishandling North Korea by using the very unilateral approach he supposedly supports for Iraq and then moves on to explain how Bush should be dealing with them bilaterally.

Personally, I think Bush made some good points during the debate, and Kerry did much better than I expected him to, but, sadly, I would begrudgingly declare Kerry the winner -- not because of his message, but because Bush did an absurdly poor job explaining himself clearly, and then to make matters worse he missed a half dozen opportunities to make Kerry look like the idiot he is.

But saying Kerry doesn't flip flop? Of course he does.

[imported_admin]

Originally posted by Infernal:
He does flip-flop. He accuses the president of lying to the American people, yet he uses the same "excuse" Bush uses for his vote for military action -- the information they were given was bad.

You misunderstood him.

He said he was for the use of force. But he was for doing it WITH OUR ALLIES and the support of the U.N. He was never for America launching an invasion of Iraq alone. His words were something along the lines of "there is the right way to do something and the wrong way. I was for the right way."

Just because he voted in favor of use of force does not mean he supported Bush's technique. That's a gross oversimplification.

I was for the war initially... but quickly changed my mind when I saw how Bush was botching it up. Do I flip-flop now?

[speedracer95v6]

I think they are both choads but I like the fact that Bush is predictable and stands for most of what I would.

[Infernal]

Originally posted by Stefan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Infernal:
He does flip-flop. He accuses the president of lying to the American people, yet he uses the same "excuse" Bush uses for his vote for military action -- the information they were given was bad.

You misunderstood him.

He said he was for the use of force. But he was for doing it WITH OUR ALLIES and the support of the U.N. He was never for America launching an invasion of Iraq alone. His words were something along the lines of "there is the right way to do something and the wrong way. I was for the right way."

Just because he voted in favor of use of force does not mean he supported Bush's technique. That's a gross oversimplification.

I was for the war initially... but quickly changed my mind when I saw how Bush was botching it up. Do I flip-flop now? </font>[/QUOTE]There were no stipulations in the vote to grant authority to the executive office to invade Iraq. Bush said he would gather as much support as he could, and he did. He gathered exactly as much as he could.

Germany, France, Russia, and others had vested interest in not joining with America. If you think Bush caused this anti-American sentiment, you're wrong. It has been there for a good long time.

The UN had 17 resolutions against Iraq. There was no other choice -- but I don't have to convince you of that because you did support the war to begin with. So, you know the reasons we went.

Why would he vote against funding the troops engaged in a war he voted for, even if he suddenly regretted his vote, and then go on to complain that they didn't have the supplies they needed to battle effectively? It's a flip flop, man. Plain and simple.

[Skapimp]

[img]graemlins/popcorn.gif[/img]

[token sebring]

[/QUOTE]There were no stipulations in the vote to grant authority to the executive office to invade Iraq. Bush said he would gather as much support as he could, and he did. He gathered exactly as much as he could.

Germany, France, Russia, and others had vested interest in not joining with America. If you think Bush caused this anti-American sentiment, you're wrong. It has been there for a good long time.

The UN had 17 resolutions against Iraq. There was no other choice -- but I don't have to convince you of that because you did support the war to begin with. So, you know the reasons we went.

Why would he vote against funding the troops engaged in a war he voted for, even if he suddenly regretted his vote, and then go on to complain that they didn't have the supplies they needed to battle effectively? It's a flip flop, man. Plain and simple. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, but Bush never wanted to wait - he's always wanted to do things his way and had already made plans before anything was finished - this war was a preconceived notion. And even if you assumed hypothetically that no one else could have ended up with a different result, at least waiting might've come up with a better plan for peace... and really, do you honestly believe that he has made this country a better place, or maintained the level of respect we used to have?

I never thought we should go after Iraq instead of putting our resources into Afghanistan, but now that we did, we need someone who can help us get out of there with the minimum number of casualties - it's like Kerry tried to point out last night - there's a difference between the war and the warriors.

I also have a hard time with the fact that he has continually attacked all sorts of civil liberties and has so little respect for the separation of church and state, but that's a whole other debate. [/QB][/QUOTE]

[camarov62003]

Originally posted by jc Kyle:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123733/?GT1=5402

i thought kerry did have a better debate, made better points. Bush seemed to over generalize what kerry was saying.. saying that Kerry switches sides on things.. while Kerry had to clarify what he meant. Bush kept repeating the same thing and sounded rather foolish.

Also, when Kerry spoke, Bush made faces, snickered, and rolled his eyes. When Bush spoke, Kerry looked at him intently, took notes, nodded when the President made points. I dunno, based off that, Bush seemed like a whiny baby while Kerry was standing up to what Bush had to say

kerry never actually said anything. he kept saying he has a plan but never said what the plan was. he also says he will expand the service but he wont tell how he is going to do that.....maybe the draft...hmmmmmmm. and all he said was what Bush didnt do never what he was going to do.

[Skapimp]

Originally posted by camarov62003:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jc Kyle:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123733/?GT1=5402

i thought kerry did have a better debate, made better points. Bush seemed to over generalize what kerry was saying.. saying that Kerry switches sides on things.. while Kerry had to clarify what he meant. Bush kept repeating the same thing and sounded rather foolish.

Also, when Kerry spoke, Bush made faces, snickered, and rolled his eyes. When Bush spoke, Kerry looked at him intently, took notes, nodded when the President made points. I dunno, based off that, Bush seemed like a whiny baby while Kerry was standing up to what Bush had to say

kerry never actually said anything. he kept saying he has a plan but never said what the plan was. he also says he will expand the service but he wont tell how he is going to do that.....maybe the draft...hmmmmmmm. and all he said was what Bush didnt do never what he was going to do. </font>[/QUOTE]Kerry went over his 4 point plan, but couldn't go into detail. It's hard to tell your WHOLE plan in 90 seconds.

Research candidates before you vote, it helps.