Sorry Imprezer I don't know what debate you where watching but Bush did seem intemidated. Im not just saying that because I'm a democrate im repeating what a Republican journalist said. Bush looked like a fool. And kept going back to the same phrases. Not only that the questions where agreed on by both parties...no suprises there. (If I remember correctly, I could be wrong but I strongly doubt it.) On top of that Bush stutured and made some strongly wrong points through the whole debate. He tore himself apart. Don't know what you saw but everyone said, Bush lost that period.

 

Ummm, I think he stated it quiet clearly what he would of done about it. He would of not RUSHED into it like Bush did. Not only that he would of wasted all possible things to save the lives of OUR soldiers. He never said he would of not removed him by force. Go look at the transcript when its up, and find me that statement because you won't find it.

Kerry added all the clarity he needed to. I still do not see how you are not grasping what he said? Bush made tons of blunders in this debate. He got his facts wrong about how many actual trained Iraqies there are now. (And thats just one off the top of my head we won't even get into North Korea or Iran which he REALLY ****ed up in.)

Not only did Kerry look good, but he made a good case for himself. On top of that he looked three times the leader that Bush wished he could be. Bushed looked liked a 14 year old boy who is unsure about himself. And a slow one at that.

 

I don't thin he was intemidated. I say so because:

1. He laughed at some rediculous comments Kerry made.
2. Kerry went back to previous questions like 3-4 times in the time designated to a different question.
3. He did not mix up facts, but rather cleared them up after Kerry's statements and Kerry did not argue them afterwards.
4. He went back to same statements because Kerry kept avoiding Bush's comments about his flip-flopping.

He did look concerned, not intemidated. I would look concerned too, if the questions were lop sided meant to provide Kerry with a stepping stone to bash Bush.

It was Bush bashing, but Bush did not fold.

P.S. Questions were prepared by the Moderator.

 

MonkeyAB is to teh funnAy as Al Franken is to a successful radio show










































































*hint* they're both a failure at them *hint*

 

I thought that the questions were agreed to by both candidates before the debate took place?

What makes you think questions were lopsided?

 

Well your the only one so far that I have read that says this, since everyone else is saying he got whipped like a *****.

1. He laughed in a debate? You think thats a good trait in a president, to laugh at others when they point something out that he doesn't believe in? Instead of standing there respectfully?

2. Kerry went back to questions, yes and each time he stated how bush was wrong. And then continued on and finished by answer the other question by the time given. Everyone noted how Bush was not capable of doing this. He asked several times for time to answer to what Kerry said. And several times he couldn't come up with anything to say. The journalist all noted this.

3. Wrong. Kerry was not given extra time to clarify it. He asked for more time to respond to what Bush had said but was denied. Hence he answered during his other time. Not only that Bush DID mix up the facts several times. For example on the sanctions on Iran.

4. Your contradicting yourself here. Its ok for Bush to go back but now its not ok for Kerry to go back?

https://www.i-club.com/forums/teh-politics-forum-114/great-debate-74358/ read that and tell me that the debates where lopped sided. None of the cominators after the debate that I saw said this. And I didn't see this either. This is a debate for the presidency. What do you suggest they talk about? Kerry is going for Bushes job not Bush for Kerry's.

It was not "Bush bashing" it was Bushes policy's getting picked apart because of how wrong they really are.

Not that I doubt you but I would really like to see a article of how they where prepared by the Morderator. Also I believe the Moderator is pretty famous for doing debates and being un-partial. Like I stated I could be wrong but, I'll let you back up the claim because im to lazy to search.

 

I think I struck a nerve. I'm not trying to be funny, you remind me of O'reilly b/c you say you are undecided but have nothing to say other than negative statements about 'liberals'. This is not appropriate for this thread, so let's end it at that. pm me or start a new thread if you have more to say.



p.s. I just heard a bush ad with voiceover from the 'Miller High Life' guy. let's just say he's getting desperate.

 

OMG what did I do this time and how did I attack liberals in this thread?

You threw the first punch by comparing me to that loudmouth, O'Reily! So who was inappropriate first?

I knew that the webmasters of the DNC had put that page up a few hours before the debates. I was just throwing that out there for a laugh or two because I knew it was coming. Did you honestly think I was trying to make a point off something so lame?

You need to take a good look at your own posts before making comments about others.

Well I was trying to be funny and obviously struck your nerve.

Forget about PM's and starting new a thread! I want everyone to know that you jumped the gun on your inappropriate statement towards me. So let's get it all out in the open here and now, shall we?

I think you need to quit being such a *****!

How's that for appropriate?!

 

Good idea...back to how Kerry beat Bush badly and how he showed what a fool Bush is to those that didn't know already.

 

haha, oh, right, Kerry would have removed saddam but without force. How?

Sounds a lot like the partisan interpreation to me. There is nothing Kerry said in this debate that he hasn't already said. That's the key; two weeks ago even the talking heads were calling Kerry's positions unclear. It's the same story after tonight.

 

Ummm did you read what i said?!! Again, "He never said he would of not removed him by force. Go look at the transcript when its up, and find me that statement because you won't find it." Please this is not partisan this is how EVERYONE is saying, that Bush got beat. Not just democrats but Republicans also. And something funny.

"LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?

BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that.

But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us."


Yep thats right folks our President believes that IRAQ attacked us and thats why he went after Iraq instead of going after BinLaden. Yep out of the horses mouth. Well in this case monkey. How more clear cut can it be that this guy should not be our leader?!?

 

The moderator himself said that in the begining of the debate.

I see your points. I guess we just interpreted the debate differently.

 

Ok, I will try to argue with you, hehe.

You cannot only use his one statement and justify what you said in the quote above. If you only read/know what you said in your last post (#26), then you are correct and Bush said something stupid.

However, many times Bush said that was in Iraq is a part of ongoing war on terrorism. Therefore, when he said he went to Iraq because US was attacked. Not by Iraq, but by the terrorists. That is why he went there to prevent another 9/11.

I think he is right on top of what he said.

 

Thats the thing though he is OUR president he shouldn't be making stupid mistakes like this at ALL.

And I thought it was well established by now that their was NO connection between the terrorist and Iraq. Face it, Iraq was NO threat to us. It is a pretty well established fact now. He didn't go there because of 9/11 he went to Alfganastan (bleh sorry bit of beer in me...f the spelling.) because of 9/11. Iraq could not had attacked us.

He was not on top of what he said. He just kept saying the same points over and over. And every single journalist has stated that Bush lost the debate. He literally sucked ***. And he also showed how horrible of a speaker he is. Its funny i had the captions on my TV since a lot of people where yelling etc at the tv. At some points when Bush talked the captions would skip a sentence. I laughed so hard everytime this happened. How could this man be our leader and not be able to pronounce things correctly?! I mean come on english isn't my first language and I have a better grasp than he does. **** its the third language I learned.

Anyways he lost this.

 

It was. By the 9/11 investigation panel no less. But what dot hey know.

-Chris