Assessment of the debate

iRepublican

iRepublican

Iron Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Points
0
President Bush: honest answers with substance:42:

Senator Kerry: politically motivated answers that dance around the issues

The winner and still undefeated President of the United States, George Bush :claps:
:42:
 
Last edited:
They misunderestimated Bush Again.

Bush: Needs to learn how to talk, totally f-ed up his chance with tons of "umms" and misunderestimatations of his speaking ability.
Kerry: Was really good at not laughing out loud at Bush making an ass of himself, and seemed to have real issues with how the President has done and ideas for what Kerry would like to do instead.
 
Don't we already have other threads on this topic?
 
I believe that I,Republican wanted a thread purely on the debate(s), rather than the general 'Bush lied here (and here, and here)' or the 'Kerry flip flopped here (and here, and here)' headbutting.
 
i,Republican, I'm not trying to be offensive, but do you ever come here to post anything other than political opinions? It's great to start some good political discussion, but not when it's the only thing you talk about on these boards. I'm sure there are other political boards to talk about issues like this. But, if you insist... :D

First of all, what are you talking about, honest answers with substance??? Bush did nothing but stutter, dance around, not answer the question asked, I could go on and on...

I think the big issue with Kerry is that he talks in too advanced terms for the common American. He uses too many terms that I don't think the average American understands, and therefore, people like you, no offense, cannot understand what his viewpoints are and what he is saying.

Bush talks more from the heart, but makes absolutely no sense at the same time, dancing around the questions asked, and using fake words like "profiterator". Yes, he said it.

I'm sorry to be so negative and attack you, but it seems like you have your names confused in your comments. I don't see how Bush had any substance at all. Kerry has better viewpoints and more intellectual and intelligent answers, end of question.

Anyone agree with me?
 
ksocia said:
I believe that I,Republican wanted a thread purely on the debate(s), rather than the general 'Bush lied here (and here, and here)' or the 'Kerry flip flopped here (and here, and here)' headbutting.
Click to expand...

I know just wanted to show it was pointless
 
Erik, you've nailed it right there. Kerry is a smart man - maybe too smart for people who don't have the capacity to grasp what he is saying, and are just looking for stubborn answers and are not willing to examine issues in depth.

Bush is full of something alright, but it's not a substance I want to mention here.
 
Embarrassingly I missed this debate. Does anyone know anywhere I can download the video?
 
Not yet Spoofee, if I see it, I'll be sure to let you know.
 
Bush has always been good at debates and that is surprising since he has trouble with english. He appeals to the every day american , that's not saying much.

Kerry is smart and I have to say the sad truth is the average american doesn't like someone smarter then them.
 
Spoofee said:
Embarrassingly I missed this debate. Does anyone know anywhere I can download the video?
Click to expand...

Sent you a PM
 
Cedar said:
Bush has always been good at debates and that is surprising since he has trouble with english. He appeals to the every day american , that's not saying much.

Kerry is smart and I have to say the sad truth is the average american doesn't like someone smarter then them.
Click to expand...
Agreed. :banghead:
 
Cedar said:
Bush has always been good at debates and that is surprising since he has trouble with english.
Click to expand...

Bush only seems like he is good at debating because he speaks with so much conviction. Assertiveness and confidence has always been the hallmark of good debate. But as Kerry has tried to point out - confidence and assertions when you are *wrong* is a terrible terrible thing.

And yes, his "English" barely qualifies him for 6th grade. At least elementary school students don't make up idiotic words and are able to pronounce words like "nuclear". I'm sure someone has tried to correct him on that as well, but the man is a stubborn @$$.
 
If I were a betting man (and I am), I would say that the RNC party and Fox News is ****ting their pants right now trying to think of ways to find all of the copies of the debate and burn them, and then somehow spin it into a Bush win. Can't wait for the polls tomorrow :)
 
Did anyone else watch the same debate I did? It's easy for Kerry to attack the President because that's all he pretty much did. As a typical Dem, he told Bush what he did wrong and didn't say much about what he was going to do that was right. Generalizations like "I'm going to do what's right" don't count.
 
I think it came down to how much time there was, Kerry only had half the deabte (<45 minutes) to talk about Bush and his policies, and after going through everything Bush has f-ed up internationally (and there was a lot), there was hardly any time to outline what he would have done instead. Just my opinion.
 
OBlachubs said:
As a typical Dem, he told Bush what he did wrong and didn't say much about what he was going to do that was right.
Click to expand...

OBlachubs, I'm going to have to strongly disagree. Kerry outlined many of his points - building strong alliances, taking scope of a situation before jumping headlong into it, more diplomatic talks, bilateral communication with N. Korea, etc. etc.

I could go on and on. Besides, if you are the challenger, your first responsibility is to identify what is wrong with the current administration. Kerry did a great job outlining his policy in the time alloted. His is an intelligent plan, a complex one. You can't possibly encompass it all in a short debate format like this, unlike Bush's stance. That's the difference here.
 
This is better than the debate on TV!

ksocia said:
I think it came down to how much time there was, Kerry only had half the deabte (<45 minutes) to talk about Bush and his policies, and after going through everything Bush has f-ed up internationally (and there was a lot), there was hardly any time to outline what he would have done instead. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Actually that was probably fortunate for Kerry as he probably doesn't have any more of a plan than to just say "I have a plan".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top