**OFFICIAL** Kerry/Bush Debate Thread: 2nd Debate to be 'Town-Hall' Style

[MrPALCO]

"It was GW Bush (not Kerry) that attacked Iraq without provocation or necessity." -- fjord

Perhaps you should switch majors. If you believe that Iraq has not "provoked? nor deserves an attack, perhaps you should request a transfer to a school that will help your mind that has been filled with mush.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Here's how Kerry feels about a "global test." More flip-flopping bs from him.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...kudlow200410011607.asp

Regrettably, President George W. Bush did not seize the moment to remind 55 million television viewers that on January 12, 1991, Sen. Kerry actually voted against S.J.RES.2, the congressional authorization that empowered President Bush 41 to liberate Kuwait after Saddam Hussein?s cruel invasion. This little bit of history sheds much light on Kerry?s past and casts a dark shadow over any of his new promises to successfully execute today?s war in Iraq.

...

If ever there was a military action that passed the ?global test? ? which Kerry argued for in the debate ? the Persian Gulf War was it. It overwhelmingly met Kerry?s dubious standard ? and still he opposed it. This reveals a credibility problem of the first order. Almost defining credulity, Kerry said in a brief statement on the Senate floor, in an accompaniment to his vote against the Persian Gulf War, that ?The president made a mistake to unilaterally increase troops, set a date, and make war so probable.?

...

Looks like Kerry failed his own test.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Thanks for the opportunity to repeat, with bolding, the important parts of the post...

That's one person's (heavily biased) opinion, with zero objective data to back it up. The consensus of the polls is that Sen Kerry won on style and substance (though I agree the latter was closer than the former). I honestly can't begin to imagine how anyone could perceive what happened on Thursday as a victory for President Bush in any aspect, but since that website is nothing but a pro-Bush feelgood-fest, they're obviously going to argue he won.

A more detached review, by a vehemently pro-Bush author, is this one, in the National Review.

The whole idea of a debate is that it is not a football game: It is up to the individual to decide who they believe "won".

What an individual feels is important in these debates is up to them. The consensus of the polls is irrelevant to your personal review. To be frank, there is little objective data when it comes to debate in the first place; style and substance are inherently subjective.

The libs here seem to attack anyone who thinks Bush won this debate, as if their subjective analysis is greater.

Then according to the polls, there must be a lot of "libs" in this country.

No, there's a lot of libs here. I say Kerry won this debate, yet you don't see me criticizing people who thinks Bush won.

I'm sorry, I missed the "here" part of your argument. Howerver, if the consenus was that Bush won the debate I don't think you would be quite so objective about it.

If Bush had won, I wouldn't be critizing people who thought kerry won either.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
"It was GW Bush (not Kerry) that attacked Iraq without provocation or necessity." -- fjord

Perhaps you should switch majors. If you believe that Iraq has not "provoked? nor deserves an attack, perhaps you should request a transfer to a school that will help your mind that has been filled with mush.

I am reminded how some follow neither style nor substance. They just follow without any semblance of reasoned thought in their head.

Where is the substance of your statement?

As people like to say on this board:

Proof, please.

Note: All of the "evidence" and "intelligence" the Bush administration provided--from many different sources, including the Brits, etc.--is simply not valid. Never was.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Thanks for the opportunity to repeat, with bolding, the important parts of the post...

That's one person's (heavily biased) opinion, with zero objective data to back it up. The consensus of the polls is that Sen Kerry won on style and substance (though I agree the latter was closer than the former). I honestly can't begin to imagine how anyone could perceive what happened on Thursday as a victory for President Bush in any aspect, but since that website is nothing but a pro-Bush feelgood-fest, they're obviously going to argue he won.

A more detached review, by a vehemently pro-Bush author, is this one, in the National Review.

The whole idea of a debate is that it is not a football game: It is up to the individual to decide who they believe "won".

What an individual feels is important in these debates is up to them. The consensus of the polls is irrelevant to your personal review. To be frank, there is little objective data when it comes to debate in the first place; style and substance are inherently subjective.

The libs here seem to attack anyone who thinks Bush won this debate, as if their subjective analysis is greater.

Then according to the polls, there must be a lot of "libs" in this country.

No, there's a lot of libs here. I say Kerry won this debate, yet you don't see me criticizing people who thinks Bush won.

I'm sorry, I missed the "here" part of your argument. Howerver, if the consenus was that Bush won the debate I don't think you would be quite so objective about it.

If Bush had won, I wouldn't be critizing people who thought kerry won either.

Wrong. If the consensus said Bush won, and I thought Kerry did, I would still be objective and hold my opinion of Kerry's victory. The consensus of the general public does not determine what I think. I do.

Not everyone is as simple minded as you believe. Of course, you think all Bush supporters are brainless, so I guess that is to be expected.

 

[MrPALCO]

"Where is the substance of your statement?

As people like to say on this board:

Proof, please. " -- fjord

How about continous violations of UN resolutions, for starters?

Fire your professor, he is over paid and stupid!

 

[MrPALCO]

"As was Jesus Christ." -- Red Dawn

Very good, you are now on record as stating that Jesus is the Christ!

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
"Where is the substance of your statement?

As people like to say on this board:

Proof, please. " -- fjord

How about continous violations of UN resolutions, for starters?

Fire your professor, he is over paid and stupid!

"It was GW Bush (not Kerry) that attacked Iraq without provocation or necessity." -- fjord

So what you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that your "proof" of provocation by Iraq and necessity is that Iraq did not uphold to UN resolution(s)?

That is quaint considering the Bush administration has consistently and repeatedly stated their invocation of Preemption with regard to attacking Iraq.

Follow me here: Preemption (pre-emptive attack) is the policy one Nation invokes when there is no provocation.

Do you see what I mean? I hope you do.

Let me spell it out:

The Bush administration would not have invoked a policy of preemption if there HAD INDEED BEEN ANY REAL provocation--in the case of real provocation--an attack would have been called something else--like "Self-Defense"

Ofcourse, it goes without saying that using the UN as "proof" of a justified attack on Iraq by the Bush administration is very simply silly.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
"As was Jesus Christ." -- Red Dawn

Very good, you are now on record as stating that Jesus is the Christ!

Are there really people who dispute that "Jesus is the Christ"? What does that sentiment even mean?

........
........

........
........
........
........

 

[MrPALCO]

"The Bush administration would not have invoked a policy of preemption if there HAD INDEED BEEN ANY REAL provocation" -- fjord

How about violating an agreement to cease fire, 12 plus years ago? Don't you grasp the gravity of that agreement? It was that agreement that kept us from running into Baghdad.

Now we have finished the job because they violated the agreement. The United States has been long-suffering with this rogue Nation of murderers.




edit...spell

 

[MrPALCO]

"Are there really people who dispute that "Jesus is the Christ"?" -- Don Vito

You tell me, Don Vito.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
"Are there really people who dispute that "Jesus is the Christ"?" -- Don Vito

You tell me, Don Vito.

I don't know, because I don't even understand what your statement means. I think it's pretty noncontroversial that Christ existed (and was, as Red Dawn observed, a charismatic and convincing public speaker), it's just less clear whether he was the son of God.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
"It was GW Bush (not Kerry) that attacked Iraq without provocation or necessity." -- fjord

Perhaps you should switch majors. If you believe that Iraq has not "provoked? nor deserves an attack, perhaps you should request a transfer to a school that will help your mind that has been filled with mush.

Perhaps people like you who are so flippant with other peoples lives should go lie down your own for the cause. You make me sick. Saddam deserves everything he has coming to him, that is no doubt. But his removal was not worth 1 American life. Arm chair executioners like you that insist it was, should be walking street duty in Bagdad right now.

 

[chess9]

Where did HeartSurgeon go?

Let's hope he isn't spending all of his spare time defending spurious lawsuits.

(Actually, I hate to see people going off in a huff over mere politics. This is no more serious than mud wrestling or sex. And, we build strong bodies LEAST 12 ways. Think of us as industrial strength Wonder Bread. Yes, P&N is health food for a sick nation. )

-Robert

 

[jackschmittusa]

MrPALCO

[QtHow about violating an agreement to cease fire, 12 plus years ago? Don't you grasp the gravity of that agreement? It was that agreement that kept us from running into Baghdad.[/quote]

The war ended because we accomplished a well defined military goal; expelling the Iraqis from Kuwait and assuring they were not going to come back. That is why we did not proceed to Baghdad. Removing Sadaam was never a defined goal of the first Gulf War.

 

[Kubla Khan]

The debate would have been a lot more fun if Cheney had subbed for Bush....

Kerry vs. Bush:

Kerry: Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us.

Bush: Of course Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.


Now, Kerry vs. Cheney:

Kerry: Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us.

Cheney: Go F--- yourself.

 

[arsbanned]

(Actually, I hate to see people going off in a huff over mere politics.

I agree, and as often as that guy storms in and out of here, I'm not so sure I'd want him doing any sort of "surgery"
on me....

 

[chowderhead]

I want to see the internals on this poll but for what it is worth
Kerry 49% to GWB 46% RV in Newsweek Poll
This was taken after the debates.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

If those numbers are accurate Kerry did everything he needed to do and more. As a Democrat, I would not say I'm feeling confident in victory but I think we've all heaved a sigh of relief.

 

[Kubla Khan]

After watching the debate, I'd really love to see what Bush's demeanor is like when he sits down and tries to negotiate with foreign leaders that disagree with him. I guess I'm not that surprised that Bush doesn't think summits are worth anything.

Does anybody remember the Cold War, when it was a damn big deal if the US president and the Soviet premier would have a face-to-face meeting? Kennedy/Kruschev, Reagan/Gorbabchev anybody?

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Kubla Khan
After watching the debate, I'd really love to see what Bush's demeanor is like when he sits down and tries to negotiate with foreign leaders that disagree with him. I guess I'm not that surprised that Bush doesn't think summits are worth anything.

Does anybody remember the Cold War, when it was a damn big deal if the US president and the Soviet premier would have a face-to-face meeting? Kennedy/Kruschev, Reagan/Gorbabchev anybody?

Hey Kubla, check out this link if you have broadband. It is a news report from the Netherlands of GWB meeting with their leaders. I get the sense, he shows people little respect.
Meeting with Leaders and PM of the Netherlands
The "Liberal" Media here would never show this.

 

[Kubla Khan]

Heh...that's pretty interesting.

I like it when Bush first sits down. It looks like his next line should be "Somebody get me the remote."

 

[gflores]

Heh, my professor today was blabbering about how Bush won...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: gflores
Heh, my professor today was blabbering about how Bush won...

So was the debate coach from Harvard on some AM talk radio show the other night. A friend of mine and I were just shaking our heads in disbelief. Guy's name is Dallas Perkins from Abilene, TX . Hmmm...

 

[going5hole]

Originally posted by: chess9
This from Merriam-Webster on "forciferous":

1. forcefully
2. foresightful
3. philosophers'
4. philosophers
5. forestries
6. firestorms
7. force-feeds
8. philosophizer
9. foresters
10. fluorographies

No mention of vociferous.

Oh, well, Bush has yet another unabashed supporter who will do and say anything to make us think Bush has an IQ greater than the square root of a negative one.

-Robert

Or maybe you should have checked more than one source. You know, before you started talking about others.

forciferous