AmishSlayer
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 5,898
- Reaction score
- 3
Kerry.
Who Won the Debate: Poll Edition
- Thread starter Narcolepsy
- Start date
Pressure
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 5,065
- Reaction score
- 0
f|uke said:
LOL LOL YOU ARE STUPID LOL YOU MAKE ME LOL INFACT I'M LOLING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I LOL WHEN I KNOW SOMETHING STUPID IS HAPPENING. I LOLED SO HARD THAT THE MILK I WAS DRINKING CAME OUT OF MY NOSE LOL ROFL LOL. PWNED GG NO RE LOL.
Seriousy, I was kidding incase you couldn't tell. I don't care how good your spelling or grammar is, I still know what you're saying.
Joeslucky22
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2004
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 0
:|
Neither won. But I voted for bush just cause hes such a funny guy
Neither won. But I voted for bush just cause hes such a funny guy
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,974
- Reaction score
- 0
Joeslucky22 said:Neither won. But I voted for bush just cause hes such a funny guy
Five minutes earlier:
Someone: Say, joeslucky, did you know that you can cut and paste text by right clicking?
Joeslucky: Intense! I must use this new power to the full extent of the law. *copies, pastes, copies, etc.*
Me: Holy crap, that's a lot of cut-and paste.
As for my opinion, I think it's pretty clear that Bush was slapped up a bunch. Too bad it was mostly interactionless.
Neutrino
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 4,407
- Reaction score
- 0
Might as well respond to these, just to present another side.
Yes, technically Kerry did state that. However, here's what he said:
He's talking in the past tense here. He says "...Saddam Hussein was 10 times...." Thus it could easily have been a slip of the tongue in a live debate. If he had said "...where Osama Bin Laden was" there would be no problem. I believe his point is still valid as Bin Laden was in Afghanistan ealier and he's talking about what the President did at this time.
Further more, the above critique of Kerry is a bit misleading itself. It states that, "Bin Laden is in Pakistan." This is not known. From CNN, "U.S. military official in Afghanistan believes the al Qaeda leader is probably in Pakistan." Source
When he says, "Nothing is further from the truth" that's just speculation. Kerry may have inferred or implied it as he said. That's not a lie. As for the claim about the "stop-loss order" I'm unable to comment on this as I cannot find it mentioned in the debate transcripts. If anyone finds it and wants to point it out to me they're welcome to do so.
I could argue that he didn't technically say he never said "lying" he actually only said he never used the "harshest word". However, I concede that's what he meant so I won't even attempt that. So basically yes, he said he hading use the word "lying". However, the best this person could come up with is two quotes 9 and 12 months old respectively? That's not very significant. Do you remember exactly everything you said 9 to 12 months ago? Of course not. Furthermore, niether of those two cases were during the current presidential race. When the moderator said, "You've repeatedly accused President Bush, not here tonight but elsewhere before" he was specifically referring to accusations Kerry has made in this election race, thus this arguement of Kerry lying is a weak technicality at best, and is not relevant to the context of the quote.
1. Here's what Kerry said:
Notice the important statement right before he mentions a "global test": "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. Just some rather significant context to the statement. As for a "global test" he says: "where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you‘re doing what you‘re doing." That sounds pretty reasonable to me. He continues: "and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." I'm not seeing anything wrong with this statement. Don't you think that any sort of pre-emptive strike should indeed be for "legitimate reasons"? And if it is I imagine it would be pretty easy to prove to the world that it was. So to recap, he states that he would preempt in any way necessary to protect our country, then he says that he would want to make sure that the American people fully understand the reasons for it, and then he finishes by saying it should be a legitimate strike and that we should be able to show the world that it was, in fact, legitimate. All of this sounds pretty reasonable to me. A pre-emptive strike is a very serious matter and his position on it sounds like a very rational way to make sure we do the right thing.
2. Here's what Kerry said:
Nuclear fuel can indeed be used for peaceful purposes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "nuclear fuel" as would be used in a nuclear power plant is quote different than weapons grade plutonium. He's talking about exploring diplomatic means of resolving the nuclear problem with Iran. Doesn't sound all that bad to me.
3. The post says, "despite the fact that they've proven untrustworthy in such negotiations. It is not proven. That's exageration. Has every avenue of diplomacy been tried yet? How can anyone say that there is no hope for such negotiations. And what is the alternative to these negotiations exactly? We're talking about a powerful country run by a dictator who actually does have control of nuclear weapons. I would prefer not to even think of some of the possible alternatives to negotiations. So to try everything in our power to resolve this peacefully would be a good thing in my opinion.
This one I'm curious about. I can't find any mention of a subway being closed down. The closest thing I could find is that some subway entrances/exits at Penn station were shut down and sealed off. So I really don't have a rebuttal for this. I'm going to reserve judgement for now as I would like to look into it further. Hopefully some news articles will cover it.
Yes, this is correct in that Kerry confused the two names in this instance. Obviously he should have said "Lubyankaya Square" instead of "Treblinka Square". It was also obviously a mistake. No he shouldn't have said it, but it happened. However, I'm pretty sure if you asked him again outside of the debate he would be able to give you the correct name. So no it wasn't good, but hardly damning either.
This is just plain ridiculous. It really doesn't even deserve a response, but I'll make one anyway. First of all, the man was there as he said. Like I pointed out above I imagine he knows what the name of the Square was if you ask him now. Shameless? How in the world can you argue it was shameless? That doesn't even make sense. Ignorant? Not if it was an honest mistake as it most likely was. Plus calling someone ignorant for one slip up, when everything else points to the person being quite intelligent is not a valid argument. And last a fraud? That's as silly as the shameless statement. A fraud of what? Is he trying to say Kerry is faking his intelligence or something? Again, doesn't make sense. Kerry is quite intelligent with numerous evidence to back that up with. That whole comment was just baseless name calling. No point to it at all.
Well, that was interesting. I would be quite curious to see a similar dissection of Bush's words in the debate as well.
Yes, technically Kerry did state that. However, here's what he said:
Kerry said:
He's talking in the past tense here. He says "...Saddam Hussein was 10 times...." Thus it could easily have been a slip of the tongue in a live debate. If he had said "...where Osama Bin Laden was" there would be no problem. I believe his point is still valid as Bin Laden was in Afghanistan ealier and he's talking about what the President did at this time.
Further more, the above critique of Kerry is a bit misleading itself. It states that, "Bin Laden is in Pakistan." This is not known. From CNN, "U.S. military official in Afghanistan believes the al Qaeda leader is probably in Pakistan." Source
When he says, "Nothing is further from the truth" that's just speculation. Kerry may have inferred or implied it as he said. That's not a lie. As for the claim about the "stop-loss order" I'm unable to comment on this as I cannot find it mentioned in the debate transcripts. If anyone finds it and wants to point it out to me they're welcome to do so.
I could argue that he didn't technically say he never said "lying" he actually only said he never used the "harshest word". However, I concede that's what he meant so I won't even attempt that. So basically yes, he said he hading use the word "lying". However, the best this person could come up with is two quotes 9 and 12 months old respectively? That's not very significant. Do you remember exactly everything you said 9 to 12 months ago? Of course not. Furthermore, niether of those two cases were during the current presidential race. When the moderator said, "You've repeatedly accused President Bush, not here tonight but elsewhere before" he was specifically referring to accusations Kerry has made in this election race, thus this arguement of Kerry lying is a weak technicality at best, and is not relevant to the context of the quote.
1. Here's what Kerry said:
Notice the important statement right before he mentions a "global test": "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. Just some rather significant context to the statement. As for a "global test" he says: "where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you‘re doing what you‘re doing." That sounds pretty reasonable to me. He continues: "and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." I'm not seeing anything wrong with this statement. Don't you think that any sort of pre-emptive strike should indeed be for "legitimate reasons"? And if it is I imagine it would be pretty easy to prove to the world that it was. So to recap, he states that he would preempt in any way necessary to protect our country, then he says that he would want to make sure that the American people fully understand the reasons for it, and then he finishes by saying it should be a legitimate strike and that we should be able to show the world that it was, in fact, legitimate. All of this sounds pretty reasonable to me. A pre-emptive strike is a very serious matter and his position on it sounds like a very rational way to make sure we do the right thing.
2. Here's what Kerry said:
Kerry said:
Nuclear fuel can indeed be used for peaceful purposes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "nuclear fuel" as would be used in a nuclear power plant is quote different than weapons grade plutonium. He's talking about exploring diplomatic means of resolving the nuclear problem with Iran. Doesn't sound all that bad to me.
3. The post says, "despite the fact that they've proven untrustworthy in such negotiations. It is not proven. That's exageration. Has every avenue of diplomacy been tried yet? How can anyone say that there is no hope for such negotiations. And what is the alternative to these negotiations exactly? We're talking about a powerful country run by a dictator who actually does have control of nuclear weapons. I would prefer not to even think of some of the possible alternatives to negotiations. So to try everything in our power to resolve this peacefully would be a good thing in my opinion.
This one I'm curious about. I can't find any mention of a subway being closed down. The closest thing I could find is that some subway entrances/exits at Penn station were shut down and sealed off. So I really don't have a rebuttal for this. I'm going to reserve judgement for now as I would like to look into it further. Hopefully some news articles will cover it.
Yes, this is correct in that Kerry confused the two names in this instance. Obviously he should have said "Lubyankaya Square" instead of "Treblinka Square". It was also obviously a mistake. No he shouldn't have said it, but it happened. However, I'm pretty sure if you asked him again outside of the debate he would be able to give you the correct name. So no it wasn't good, but hardly damning either.
This is just plain ridiculous. It really doesn't even deserve a response, but I'll make one anyway. First of all, the man was there as he said. Like I pointed out above I imagine he knows what the name of the Square was if you ask him now. Shameless? How in the world can you argue it was shameless? That doesn't even make sense. Ignorant? Not if it was an honest mistake as it most likely was. Plus calling someone ignorant for one slip up, when everything else points to the person being quite intelligent is not a valid argument. And last a fraud? That's as silly as the shameless statement. A fraud of what? Is he trying to say Kerry is faking his intelligence or something? Again, doesn't make sense. Kerry is quite intelligent with numerous evidence to back that up with. That whole comment was just baseless name calling. No point to it at all.
Well, that was interesting. I would be quite curious to see a similar dissection of Bush's words in the debate as well.
Neutrino
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 4,407
- Reaction score
- 0
Alright I just found the reference to stop-loss orders. Sorry about that.
Here's the complaint:
Here's what Kerry said on the "stop-loss orders":
"people with stop-loss programs where they‘re told you can‘t get out of the military"
There's the exact reference to "stop-loss orders". Note that he is not criticizing the stop-loss order itself, he is criticizing the stop-loss orders that tell people they "can't get out of the military." This is a very important distinction. The above post tried to make him look bad by saying there have been stop-loss orders since the Clinton administration. Yes this is true, but it leaves out a very important and relevant fact. A stop-loss order is where a soldier must deploy before leaving service. Kerry is not attacking this policy in itself. He is specifically attacking the policy being used to tell soldiers they can't leave the military. This is the distinction I spoke of. For the war in Iraq the stop-loss order program was expanded to make it so soldiers on deployment cannot return home until the end of their deployment, even if their term is up. This is not the same stop-loss order program that was in effect in the Clinton era or before the current Iraqi war. The program was changed for this war, thus Kerry's statement makes complete sense. See, details are amazing things aren't they?
Source
Well, I think that about covers everything in those posts.
Any rebuttal Joey?
Here's the complaint:
Here's what Kerry said on the "stop-loss orders":
Kerry said:
"people with stop-loss programs where they‘re told you can‘t get out of the military"
There's the exact reference to "stop-loss orders". Note that he is not criticizing the stop-loss order itself, he is criticizing the stop-loss orders that tell people they "can't get out of the military." This is a very important distinction. The above post tried to make him look bad by saying there have been stop-loss orders since the Clinton administration. Yes this is true, but it leaves out a very important and relevant fact. A stop-loss order is where a soldier must deploy before leaving service. Kerry is not attacking this policy in itself. He is specifically attacking the policy being used to tell soldiers they can't leave the military. This is the distinction I spoke of. For the war in Iraq the stop-loss order program was expanded to make it so soldiers on deployment cannot return home until the end of their deployment, even if their term is up. This is not the same stop-loss order program that was in effect in the Clinton era or before the current Iraqi war. The program was changed for this war, thus Kerry's statement makes complete sense. See, details are amazing things aren't they?
Source
Well, I think that about covers everything in those posts.
Any rebuttal Joey?
DarkStar
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 4,016
- Reaction score
- 0
Yo, just found something weird. Compare the height of Bush on the fox's front page and compare it to this shot from the toronto star. I attached a little eye-line comparison to highlight the difference.
Something is fishy. I actually think it's against the law to manipulate AP photos. Fox is absolutely shameless.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...=968332188492&col=968793972154&tacodalogin=no
http://www.foxnews.com/
Something is fishy. I actually think it's against the law to manipulate AP photos. Fox is absolutely shameless.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...=968332188492&col=968793972154&tacodalogin=no
http://www.foxnews.com/
Sprafa
Tank
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,742
- Reaction score
- 0
Fox News distributes memos of how to focus on subjects and/or react and which ones they want more or less focused.
No other so-called "independent and unbiased" news agency works like that.
just check this out - http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002
No other so-called "independent and unbiased" news agency works like that.
just check this out - http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002
K e r b e r o s
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 3,227
- Reaction score
- 0
I think they both did good in debating, but Bush should've been more innovative in what he was doing. Its obvious Kerry was going to be the liberal medias star, so he should've gone rampant.
Personally, I thought Kerry flip-flopped in a lot of topics, he was not consistent, but he did get to represent his image alongside Bush's presence. I think thats his only saving grace.
Kerry tried to call a flip-flop on Bush, but that was put down before Kerry could move on with it. I thought it was too short, but Kerry obviously had an advantage because he was willing to promote his image by discussing what he was for.
I think Conservatives were dissapointed in this matter, but during the debate, any known Conservative was able to acknowledge Bush's points, without getting distracted.
In all honesty, I dont care who wins. Kerry has adapted nearly Bush's stance that we need to fix Iraq, and stay for at least six months. In that, I have no more complaints. I got Stem Cell research with Kerry, Kerry has adapted some good policy on European relation, and most of all, no more religious babbeling.
The element I was concerned about is the same with both candidates, so my complaints are nullified. I honestly dont care who wins. For a second time that I stated...
Course, you know why Kerry is for Iraq now right? To gain a swing or undecided republican vote to his side. This debate will turn Kerry around. I think everyone knows that.
Personally, I thought Kerry flip-flopped in a lot of topics, he was not consistent, but he did get to represent his image alongside Bush's presence. I think thats his only saving grace.
Kerry tried to call a flip-flop on Bush, but that was put down before Kerry could move on with it. I thought it was too short, but Kerry obviously had an advantage because he was willing to promote his image by discussing what he was for.
I think Conservatives were dissapointed in this matter, but during the debate, any known Conservative was able to acknowledge Bush's points, without getting distracted.
In all honesty, I dont care who wins. Kerry has adapted nearly Bush's stance that we need to fix Iraq, and stay for at least six months. In that, I have no more complaints. I got Stem Cell research with Kerry, Kerry has adapted some good policy on European relation, and most of all, no more religious babbeling.
The element I was concerned about is the same with both candidates, so my complaints are nullified. I honestly dont care who wins. For a second time that I stated...
Course, you know why Kerry is for Iraq now right? To gain a swing or undecided republican vote to his side.
This debate will turn Kerry around. I think everyone knows that.
K e r b e r o s
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 3,227
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks, but can you comment on what I said?
K e r b e r o s
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 3,227
- Reaction score
- 0
...and also straying off topic?
edit: It was my Signature, right? Glad to see you back Sprafa!
edit: It was my Signature, right?
Glad to see you back Sprafa!
Sprafa
Tank
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,742
- Reaction score
- 0
Okay, about flip-flopping - stop watching Fox News.
If Kerry changed his opinions, it's because he understood he made a mistake. He clearly says that. If you stubbornly keep your views for let's say, 1 year, you get outdated. That's not how the world works. You have the turn with the World, not try to stop it when it's agreeing with you.
If "flip-flopping" is changing opinions Bush does it all the time, and so does every single informed person on this World.
The problem is, it's not the same. The Arabs hate Bush for ruining their talks of "unity", the Asians hate Bush for messing around with NK, which they think they could have handled, the Europeans (majority of europe) hates Bush for screwing their "Union". Latin America hates Bush for disregarding them (I'm Brazilian, and go there nearly once a year. One of the big points of the new President was that he wouldn't "follow America like a sheep".)
I'm not saying that any of these people are right. I'm saying what they feel.
The World is agaisnt Bush. The main point from Kerry would be what he calls "fresh credibility". Because that's exactly what the USA and the world needs. Let's not turn the USA into another "gigantic head without a body".
EDIT : no it wasn't your signature, you edited your post to something very different and extremely better articulated than before.
If Kerry changed his opinions, it's because he understood he made a mistake. He clearly says that. If you stubbornly keep your views for let's say, 1 year, you get outdated. That's not how the world works. You have the turn with the World, not try to stop it when it's agreeing with you.
If "flip-flopping" is changing opinions Bush does it all the time, and so does every single informed person on this World.
The problem is, it's not the same. The Arabs hate Bush for ruining their talks of "unity", the Asians hate Bush for messing around with NK, which they think they could have handled, the Europeans (majority of europe) hates Bush for screwing their "Union". Latin America hates Bush for disregarding them (I'm Brazilian, and go there nearly once a year. One of the big points of the new President was that he wouldn't "follow America like a sheep".)
I'm not saying that any of these people are right. I'm saying what they feel.
The World is agaisnt Bush. The main point from Kerry would be what he calls "fresh credibility". Because that's exactly what the USA and the world needs. Let's not turn the USA into another "gigantic head without a body".
EDIT : no it wasn't your signature, you edited your post to something very different and extremely better articulated than before.
Narcolepsy
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,715
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting poll - it comfirmed what many others, and myself, thought.
Now, about Nader: Notice that on this poll, Nader was only an annoying choice that sucked votes from candidates who could actually make a difference in the poll, just like in the actual elections. It would be interesting to poll the Nader-ites to determine who they would've voted for otherwise. Statistics would probably say Kerry.
Now, about Nader: Notice that on this poll, Nader was only an annoying choice that sucked votes from candidates who could actually make a difference in the poll, just like in the actual elections. It would be interesting to poll the Nader-ites to determine who they would've voted for otherwise. Statistics would probably say Kerry.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,315
- Reaction score
- 62
Neutrino said:Just some info for you:
The poll question: Who won the debate?
Poll Results so far:
MSNBC
Kerry: 70%
Bush: 30%
CNN
Kerry: 79%
Bush: 18%
Tie: 4%
ABC
Kerry: 45%
Bush: 36%
Tie: 17%
www.Halflife2.net
Kerry: 69%
Bush: 17%
I would have to say the evidence is somewhat against you.
you forgot FoxNews:
Kerry: .01%
Bush: 99.99%
:E disclaimer: May or may not be true
Jakeic
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 276
- Reaction score
- 0
That's odd, Kerry was very clear and consistent in the debate. What he said, he said bluntly.
That's not exactly true, well, it's not true at all. Kerry's stance on Iraq has not changed, what has changed is what is reported on his "stance". He believed Saddam to be a threat, and that he needed to be taken care of. However, he did not want to go to war with out a just cause. Now that we are in Iraq, we need to fix what we screwed up. Bush on the other hand, changed his mind about Iraq. I remember sometime ago when he claimed we won the war and we were ready to find WMD's.
but that's what the liberal media wants you to believe, something closer to the truth.
The Monkey
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 16,317
- Reaction score
- 16
I saw it at civics today. Bush didn't have control of the situation, but on the other hand, Kerry looked ike a hourse.
Korgoth
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,233
- Reaction score
- 0
gh0st said:
Wow, gh0st, really wow. I can't believe it. I seriously am almost speechless. You've gained my respect. Not because of semi positive remarks for kerry or less than positive remarks for bush, just the fact that you viewed the debate open mindedly enough to come to your conclusion.
I agree with the above quote, at least 95%
(I think hell has officially frozen over.) :cheers:
The Monkey
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 16,317
- Reaction score
- 16
f|uke said:
lol
Javert
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 3,384
- Reaction score
- 3
CptStern said:
www.foxnews.com Poll.
b. President Bush (40%)
47,478
c. Senator Kerry (40%)
48,490
Very close.
Sprafa
Tank
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,742
- Reaction score
- 0
If you're not familiar with the gazillions of allegations and pretty much confirmation of bias by Fox news, well ....http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002
I just checked Foxnews.com
their big proud announced all over the place is this thing - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88190,00.html
if they just stated in their front page "we love Bush and we are all republicans" it wouldn't be any clearer.
I just checked Foxnews.com
their big proud announced all over the place is this thing - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88190,00.html
if they just stated in their front page "we love Bush and we are all republicans" it wouldn't be any clearer.
A
ATI4EVER!
Guest
Kerry won, Bush kkept studdering. lol. And the first time he spoke, it was pretty funny "I also thank the [something] and....uh...ummm...[changes subject]
lol
ANyways, they didn't let Nader run this year b/c they said that ppl who voted for him last year would have voted for gore.
lol
ANyways, they didn't let Nader run this year b/c they said that ppl who voted for him last year would have voted for gore.
A
ATI4EVER!
Guest
Fox Network Will Rock Your World!!!!!
Similar threads
