Kerry won the debate that hasn't happened yet
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,152
Originally Posted by Salty
As I write this, it is 4:29 on the West coast. We have about 2 1/2 hours until the debates start.
But why wait to find out who wins? It appears the Democratic National Committee has already traveled in time with the results. You can make sure to tell all your friends about how Kerry won the debate that hasn't happened yet!
http://www.democrats.org/action/2004...ml?psc=demnews
Tia, Eric
But why wait to find out who wins? It appears the Democratic National Committee has already traveled in time with the results. You can make sure to tell all your friends about how Kerry won the debate that hasn't happened yet!
http://www.democrats.org/action/2004...ml?psc=demnews
Tia, Eric
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,152
From: ex-post whore
Car Info: Aspin '02 WRX sedan
The only thing I really care about is that I hope that SNL does a good job doing their interpretation of the debat 
..... the Bush vs Gore Debate for 2000 on SNL was one of the best skits that I have seen.... 
..... the Bush vs Gore Debate for 2000 on SNL was one of the best skits that I have seen....
Admin v2.0
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,965
From: Alameda, CA, USA
Car Info: 02 Black Legacy GT
Thats the thing though he is OUR president he shouldn't be making stupid mistakes like this at ALL.
a. He said war on terrorism is on.
b. He said Iraq has connection to terrorists.
c. He said that any country that harbors terrorists is a terrorist threat.
d. He goes to war with Iraq.
---
War in Iraq = war on terrorism. It was proven by 9/11 commision that Iraq had ties to terrorists organizations. So, he did not make any mistake by saying that he went to war with Iraq becasue US was attacked first, yes, the terrorists did.
I am going cross eyed here.
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,709
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by Imprezer
He did not make that mistake. You just ripped a small peice of his answer/answers which does not contain the full answer.
a. He said war on terrorism is on.
b. He said Iraq has connection to terrorists.
c. He said that any country that harbors terrorists is a terrorist threat.
d. He goes to war with Iraq.
---
War in Iraq = war on terrorism. It was proven by 9/11 commision that Iraq had ties to terrorists organizations. So, he did not make any mistake by saying that he went to war with Iraq becasue US was attacked first, yes, the terrorists did.
I am going cross eyed here.
a. He said war on terrorism is on.
b. He said Iraq has connection to terrorists.
c. He said that any country that harbors terrorists is a terrorist threat.
d. He goes to war with Iraq.
---
War in Iraq = war on terrorism. It was proven by 9/11 commision that Iraq had ties to terrorists organizations. So, he did not make any mistake by saying that he went to war with Iraq becasue US was attacked first, yes, the terrorists did.
I am going cross eyed here.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html
IN FACT. They did find links between Iran and terrorism... so why didn't we go to war with Iran and not Iraq?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...664967,00.html
-Chris
Admin v2.0
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,965
From: Alameda, CA, USA
Car Info: 02 Black Legacy GT
Hmm...
I told you I got cross eyed.
I am wrong here then, I guess.
First time I pop to Politics forum and I get pwned! I will shut up now and go back to my corner.
P.S. I still like Bush...
I told you I got cross eyed.
I am wrong here then, I guess.
First time I pop to Politics forum and I get pwned!
I will shut up now and go back to my corner. P.S. I still like Bush...
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,709
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by Imprezer
Hmm...
I told you I got cross eyed.
I am wrong here then, I guess.
First time I pop to Politics forum and I get pwned! I will shut up now and go back to my corner.
P.S. I still like Bush...
I told you I got cross eyed.
I am wrong here then, I guess.
First time I pop to Politics forum and I get pwned! I will shut up now and go back to my corner.
P.S. I still like Bush...
Hey it's cool, you're still the man, just not as much around these parts.
-Chris
Thread Starter
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Ok, I saw the debate seeing how i forgot my tivo was set to it downstairs.
Here's my take on the first round.
Bush came out strong in the beginning and slowly got worse and Kerry came out the exact opposite. Kerry said things that Bush could have easily debated but never did. This struck me as odd because Bush is a very competitive person and a smart speaker regardless of the little things you guys make fun of.
Republicans were hoping for a knock-out punch after the RNC, but missed it with this debate seeing how Kerry was the winner. I feel the Republican party is now neck to neck with the Democrats based on the undecided voters making their decisions from these debates.
Here's my take on the first round.
Bush came out strong in the beginning and slowly got worse and Kerry came out the exact opposite. Kerry said things that Bush could have easily debated but never did. This struck me as odd because Bush is a very competitive person and a smart speaker regardless of the little things you guys make fun of.
Republicans were hoping for a knock-out punch after the RNC, but missed it with this debate seeing how Kerry was the winner. I feel the Republican party is now neck to neck with the Democrats based on the undecided voters making their decisions from these debates.
Originally Posted by subaruguru
I watched the debate too. Now here's my question: If the world is better off without Saddam, how come Kerry continued to say he would not have removed him by force?
Same old same old. Bush was not the better speaker, hands down. But Kerry added zero clarity to his position, and Bush did not make a policy blunder or misstate/confuse his own.
Kerry looked good, that's about it.
Same old same old. Bush was not the better speaker, hands down. But Kerry added zero clarity to his position, and Bush did not make a policy blunder or misstate/confuse his own.
Kerry looked good, that's about it.
Originally Posted by Salty
Republicans were hoping for a knock-out punch after the RNC, but missed it with this debate seeing how Kerry was the winner. I feel the Republican party is now neck to neck with the Democrats based on the undecided voters making their decisions from these debates.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,556
From: Austin, TX
Hmm, I personally think Bush is not the brightest tool in the shed. And he showed this. If cspan plays their footage of the debate you'll get what im saying. But I do agree with you Salty on how Bush did well in start but just lost it after 15mins or so. He kept repeating the samething over and over while Kerry showed what he ment and provided facts. Also Kerry appeared more "presidential" than Bush in his stance and his apperance.
Also what the polls don't have is all the new voters that are going to vote because of how much they dislike Bush. If its 50/50 during the elections. Kerry will win. And I only expect Kerry to do better in debates with interaction from the audiunce walking around. Bush will get creamed in those debates. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
Also what the polls don't have is all the new voters that are going to vote because of how much they dislike Bush. If its 50/50 during the elections. Kerry will win. And I only expect Kerry to do better in debates with interaction from the audiunce walking around. Bush will get creamed in those debates. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by njc200
Kerry did not say he wouldn't have removed him. He said he would have gone about it in a different way. He said there was a right way and a wrong way to remove him and the President did it the wrong way.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,556
From: Austin, TX
And here I thought he stated it pretty damn clearly.
He said, that he would of exhausted all possible means and would of gone in with the support of other countries. Since after all war would of been the only option left to us and the other countries would of agreed. Also he would not have a extended plan on staying there. We are building 14 bases there right now. Furthmore he would of spread the fanicial burdon through out our allias not just us paying for more than 90% of the bill. And he would open the contracts up for the nations that are helping us.
It should be plainly obvious that Bush RUSHED into Iraq. And the rest of the world saw this and disagreed to help out. All the leaders that did have been voted out and Blair will proably lose his position next. On top of this we invite them to help out in Iraq but yet they will not recoup any of their cost since we control all the oil. So no real reason for them helping us out in OUR blounder.
1100+ dead and thousands of our men wonded because our president wanted to go into a war. Not something I support.
He said, that he would of exhausted all possible means and would of gone in with the support of other countries. Since after all war would of been the only option left to us and the other countries would of agreed. Also he would not have a extended plan on staying there. We are building 14 bases there right now. Furthmore he would of spread the fanicial burdon through out our allias not just us paying for more than 90% of the bill. And he would open the contracts up for the nations that are helping us.
It should be plainly obvious that Bush RUSHED into Iraq. And the rest of the world saw this and disagreed to help out. All the leaders that did have been voted out and Blair will proably lose his position next. On top of this we invite them to help out in Iraq but yet they will not recoup any of their cost since we control all the oil. So no real reason for them helping us out in OUR blounder.
1100+ dead and thousands of our men wonded because our president wanted to go into a war. Not something I support.
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,661
From: location location
Car Info: 98 Impreza Outback Sport
Originally Posted by Salty
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
You threw the first punch by comparing me to that loudmouth, O'Reily! So who was inappropriate first
Originally Posted by Salty
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.
If you'd like to discount this, just keep it in mind the next time you try to attempt to pick apart someone's argument, after all, it could just be a joke, right?
Originally Posted by Salty
Well I was trying to be funny and obviously struck your nerve.
Originally Posted by Salty
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?!
I think you need to quit being such a *****!
How's that for appropriate?!
Now that you're out of your bubble (fresh air, huh?), you may want to re-read what I've said here- It could really do you a benefit.
Last edited by scoobsport98; Oct 6, 2004 at 02:05 PM.