well i wuz susposed to watch it for a homework assigment but i got kinda bored with it :spank:
Who Won The Debate?
Hopefully most of you watched it. I think overall Kerry did a better job.
1 - 20 of 99 Posts
bored!? Man, I taped it.
are you kidding me? I'll be the people who voted bush didn't even watch it. No question, Kerry smoked him.
K
K
Killer, I almost didn't put the poll up because I know all those crooked Republicans would pick Bush even if they didn't watch the debate.
yeah but... i mean, you can't lead america if you don't have a railroad, unwavering approach to politics. You must aways stay the course of your decisions even if you're completely wrong! I mean, the world won't respect you!
K
K
I would actually call it a draw. The format of the debate was lame, and the time limits were too constraining.
I didn't care for the debate. It was alot of vague rhetoric and idealism instead of tough questions and hard answers.
I flunked them both.
I didn't care for the debate. It was alot of vague rhetoric and idealism instead of tough questions and hard answers.
I flunked them both.
As far as debating goes, I think Bush was a little better at presenting himself and using facts to back up his statements. They were both good at answering the questions asked, but Kerry used up time to readdress previous questions and he also threw in campaign slogans. Bush tended to also readdress previous questions but in a different manner of addressing what Kerry said and leading that statement into his delivery.
It was a very good debate compared to previous elections, and both candidates made it clear what their intentions are for international policy.
Anyone notice that Bush said he would not change the Armed Forces from an all volunteer force (No Draft) and Kerry didn't? I can't remember if Kerry had the opportunity.
It was a very good debate compared to previous elections, and both candidates made it clear what their intentions are for international policy.
Anyone notice that Bush said he would not change the Armed Forces from an all volunteer force (No Draft) and Kerry didn't? I can't remember if Kerry had the opportunity.
this was Iraq, Bush's strongest topic and point, Kerry's weakest point. Yet Kerry dunked Bush and totally shmoked him...
Mike
Mike
Alright since u guys watched this and i dident maybe yall can help me out :thumbup: What was the issue? and what was both kerry and bush's replys to it?it was a homework assigment..
The great debate: Bush v. Kerry
by 68.
(this is a condensed version from a paper I wrote tonight for my PolySci class - if you want the full copy, PM me)
Televised debates were once used as an open forum for the public to ask the candidates where they stood on important issues. Today, they are used as a campaign tactic, and rarely focus on the important issues facing Americans.
Tonights debate was no exception.
The format was pretty linear, like the candidates themselves - it was a 2 minute response to the question, followed by a 90 second retort. Often, 30 seconds was given the responder to retort to the retort. Okay then.
What made this debate lame was simple: it was a debate over who would protect the country better with less money in less time. A strong issue in the media, but we won't go into Iraq...
What it DIDNT cover were the issues most important to the people voting... Jobs, the Economy, Funding for public utilities (schools, police & fire, medical, taxes, etc.)
Not only was it a once topic debate - but both opponents attacked the stability, intelligence, and decisions of the other, while admiring their wives, children, bravery, education and social status.
This was not about who WON the debate - Bush and Kerry both made good points and bad points. Kerry was well formed and cool-headed, but his arguments never pointed to anything other than bad leadership in the presidency (not in congress, UN or foreign allies).
Bush, always with a stumbling problem did trip up a few times, but I felt he avoided attacking Kerry in such a way as to call him an idiot. Where Bush dominated was in Patriot-speak (meaning: touch the souls of Americans with things like "freedom", "homeland", "liberation")
In conclusion, this debate cannot be any more helpful in determining who to vote for because it did not really isolate the man who would lead a better America. The only way to really understand these ideas is to consider that U.S. campaigns are possible only through large sums of money - and everyone knows that those who cough up the big bucks get a seat right next to whoever wins in November
Thank you
68
by 68.
(this is a condensed version from a paper I wrote tonight for my PolySci class - if you want the full copy, PM me)
Televised debates were once used as an open forum for the public to ask the candidates where they stood on important issues. Today, they are used as a campaign tactic, and rarely focus on the important issues facing Americans.
Tonights debate was no exception.
The format was pretty linear, like the candidates themselves - it was a 2 minute response to the question, followed by a 90 second retort. Often, 30 seconds was given the responder to retort to the retort. Okay then.
What made this debate lame was simple: it was a debate over who would protect the country better with less money in less time. A strong issue in the media, but we won't go into Iraq...
What it DIDNT cover were the issues most important to the people voting... Jobs, the Economy, Funding for public utilities (schools, police & fire, medical, taxes, etc.)
Not only was it a once topic debate - but both opponents attacked the stability, intelligence, and decisions of the other, while admiring their wives, children, bravery, education and social status.
This was not about who WON the debate - Bush and Kerry both made good points and bad points. Kerry was well formed and cool-headed, but his arguments never pointed to anything other than bad leadership in the presidency (not in congress, UN or foreign allies).
Bush, always with a stumbling problem did trip up a few times, but I felt he avoided attacking Kerry in such a way as to call him an idiot. Where Bush dominated was in Patriot-speak (meaning: touch the souls of Americans with things like "freedom", "homeland", "liberation")
In conclusion, this debate cannot be any more helpful in determining who to vote for because it did not really isolate the man who would lead a better America. The only way to really understand these ideas is to consider that U.S. campaigns are possible only through large sums of money - and everyone knows that those who cough up the big bucks get a seat right next to whoever wins in November
Thank you
68
I agree.NAIRB said:I would actually call it a draw. The format of the debate was lame, and the time limits were too constraining.
I didn't care for the debate. It was alot of vague rhetoric and idealism instead of tough questions and hard answers.
I flunked them both.
I did my best to listen to it at work.AM radio doesnt pick up well in the shop.From what I heard Bush was a little nice to Kerry,he could have slammed him a little more but just like the Gore debate,1st one is free,after that dog eat dog.I do not believe Bush will be as nice next time and will eat Kerry's lunch.All told results are saying that Kerry may have indeed won the debate but in still trailing in the projected outcome of the election.Kerry did not say anything to strengthen himself.Think about this,most all concern is over Iraq.Ok,do you want someone so indecisive in what he thinks to try and finish this task at hand?Kerry cant just bring the guys home in 4 years as he says.Honestley,get everyone out as quick as possible,civil unrest will really come into play in the mid-east then.That would just be one more reason for all to hate the US more than they already do.I can here it now"The big bad Americans left us out to dry again,poor ,poor us"Kerry would be a bigger mistake than Clinton and her sissy husband was.
I was not too impressed with either. I'm still trying to find Triblinka Square on a map? Maybe it's in Cambodia. Kerry choked big time with his statement about the "global test" he would require before going to war to protect the U.S.A.. He has shown his true colors, and would defer to the u.n. on our national security.
As for the poll, I didn't vote, and I think the dnc operative joe lockhart summed it up when he was caught on tape whispering that he thought it was a draw.
As for the poll, I didn't vote, and I think the dnc operative joe lockhart summed it up when he was caught on tape whispering that he thought it was a draw.
Kerry had a much better sales pitch...Bush sruggled for words, while Kerry is pretty quick with his mouth.
He says alot od nice rosie things...Ill stay with Bush, even if he cant talk LOL
He says alot od nice rosie things...Ill stay with Bush, even if he cant talk LOL
debate
I can say i think old W did a little better. Not much but some. My problem is that i just can't stand to look at kerry knowing where he stands on some of the issues i feel are important, plus his wife just freaks me out......
This just my opinion..
Keith
I can say i think old W did a little better. Not much but some. My problem is that i just can't stand to look at kerry knowing where he stands on some of the issues i feel are important, plus his wife just freaks me out......
This just my opinion..
Keith
Hey, I wonder if Kerry consulted with Michael Jackson about how to change his skin color back to white from QT Instant Tan orange?
Overall , a draw.
Kerry was more polished, no doubt. But he had no content and any pointed questions, he deferred. Anyone watching would say Kerry won, but it was all polish. You can polish rust off, but the rust is still there, and it will come to the surface!
Bush was a little too "back woods" in his debate style. He let Kerry "off" on several occasions when he could have speared him. He also seemed very careful of what he said, like the way he would stop and almost rethink his response, so he didn't spill any international beans.
He also overused "Work". That must have been the theme he was trying to convey.
Did anyone notice how Kerry insulted Poland? Bush mentioned the fact that England ,Poland and others were Allies. Yet Kerry only acknowledged England and one other. Didn't acknowledge Poland. They were our second biggest Allie behind England! NOT GOOD if your looking for their help! ALso, I'm surprised Bush didn't take issue with France and Germany blocking the UN resolutions when Kerry wanted our "Allies" to unilaterally santion Iraq. Either Kerry was absent (again) during those meetings, or his selective memory was working. France and Germany were trading chemicals for oil. The very same chemicals used in WMD. Hmmm? And why were they (France and Germany) never the target of terrorists? US, Russia, Saudi Arabia....
Now here's the kicker! He wants to have BiLateral talks with N.Korea. (One on One) He wants to forsake a 5 party negotiation. THAT IS JUST THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE WANTS WITH IRAQ!!!!!! He wants a "gang" there!! SO this will knock China away from us! Great!!! This is from the guy that is considered a N.Korean War hero. His picture is in their museums of War history FOR THEM !!!!
(I will post any links requested for backup for those who think I am misquoting)
Kerry was more polished, no doubt. But he had no content and any pointed questions, he deferred. Anyone watching would say Kerry won, but it was all polish. You can polish rust off, but the rust is still there, and it will come to the surface!
Bush was a little too "back woods" in his debate style. He let Kerry "off" on several occasions when he could have speared him. He also seemed very careful of what he said, like the way he would stop and almost rethink his response, so he didn't spill any international beans.
He also overused "Work". That must have been the theme he was trying to convey.
Did anyone notice how Kerry insulted Poland? Bush mentioned the fact that England ,Poland and others were Allies. Yet Kerry only acknowledged England and one other. Didn't acknowledge Poland. They were our second biggest Allie behind England! NOT GOOD if your looking for their help! ALso, I'm surprised Bush didn't take issue with France and Germany blocking the UN resolutions when Kerry wanted our "Allies" to unilaterally santion Iraq. Either Kerry was absent (again) during those meetings, or his selective memory was working. France and Germany were trading chemicals for oil. The very same chemicals used in WMD. Hmmm? And why were they (France and Germany) never the target of terrorists? US, Russia, Saudi Arabia....
Now here's the kicker! He wants to have BiLateral talks with N.Korea. (One on One) He wants to forsake a 5 party negotiation. THAT IS JUST THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE WANTS WITH IRAQ!!!!!! He wants a "gang" there!! SO this will knock China away from us! Great!!! This is from the guy that is considered a N.Korean War hero. His picture is in their museums of War history FOR THEM !!!!
(I will post any links requested for backup for those who think I am misquoting)
Results I saw on the news this morning
43% say Kerry won
28% say Bush won
29% say it was a tie
Did anyone watch the Daily Show at 11 last night? They re-run it at 7:00 tonight, it's really funny.
43% say Kerry won
28% say Bush won
29% say it was a tie
Did anyone watch the Daily Show at 11 last night? They re-run it at 7:00 tonight, it's really funny.
I was supposed to watch it for my government class, but you know how it goes, I didn't watch it
1 - 20 of 99 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Hot Rod Forum
A forum community dedicated to hot rod owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about restoration, builds, performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
