Who Won The Presidential Debate?

[Krush2k2]

I WAS 2 NERVOUS 2 WATCH. IMMA VERY PRO BUSH-WHO IN YOUR OPINION WON AND WHY?

[Iacobus]

Kerry won. My reasons for saying this have been laid out in the other thread.

[Guest Aluigi]

no one won in my opinion. but kerry did hold his own. so did bush.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Neither one of them won the debate. They both blew big moments in the debate. Bush was somewhat flustered and nervous, but he really emphasized his point of staying the course and reiterated it throughout the debate. Kerry was giving hindsight that made it sound like we should have been like the UN when it came to Iraq. Make threats but don't follow through. I'm not keen on having to get everyone on board before we do anything internationally. It seems that if we're resolved to do get something done it shouldn't matter if we do it with everyone or by ourselves. Sometimes as a leader you've gotta step up and do things yourself.

[heyyoimjohnny]

I don't think anybody really took the upper hand last night. I'm biased with Bush, of course, but Kerry finally revealed his position on the war, which people were happy to finally hear.
I agree with Bush when he said Kerry's plan wouldn't be too effective when he was telling the troops over there and all the "allies" he wants that the war isn't right and shouldn't be there. Plus, Kerry's complaining they don't have good enough equipment, but he voted against that money for supplies earlier?
Because he keeps changing, I think people lately have been confused with Kerry's veiws on the war. Last night he finally came out and told people. But with his history, who knows if he'll change them again...?


I liked this debate, but I'm looking forward to the other ones. I already know who I'd rather have leading us in this war.

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

For the UN.


It was created shortly after world war two (I believe), and the US is not an active member (I think I worded that poorly). There were treatries and whatnot to be signed, but Roosevelt (I think he was President at the time) not only didn't sign those, but did not wish the US to be a part of it. Because we're not accountable to the UN, because we've kept ourselves seperate from them, Bush did [b]not[/b] have to appear before them or plead his case. Bush did nothing illegal, and pre-emptive strikes are legal without the Senate's approval. A lot of what Kerry said last night made me think that he was more ignorant of the issues and the US policies than I had thought he was before.

[popestpiusx]

Mike Peroutka won.

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

:laugh:

[Ash Wednesday]

Gore won the first debate, too. Yay for Gore!

Seriously, I don't think the debate winner will really be called until after the election. Then people will look back and say either "eh, Bush was flustered" or "eh, Bush was more personable."

[White Knight]

Bush barely won, but "barely" Kerry was impersonating Bush's character all the way, stole lines from him. Anyone who didn't catch that, sould re watch it again to catch it. Because its very Obvious, and Bush, in some cases, looked suprised, tired, and etc. but Bush still won.

[Ash Wednesday]

The word is, Bush was less rested because he was busy out running around comforting hurricane victims, and Kerry stayed holed up in his hotel room.

Plus, he got a manicure.

Isn't that precious?

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Mrs. Bro. Adam' date='Oct 1 2004, 08:00 AM'] It was created shortly after world war two (I believe), and the US is not an active member (I think I worded that poorly). There were treatries and whatnot to be signed, but Roosevelt (I think he was President at the time) not only didn't sign those, but did not wish the US to be a part of it. Because we're not accountable to the UN, because we've kept ourselves seperate from them... [/quote]
You are half right. The UN was created after WWII. But where you are wrong, is the rest.

After World War One Wilsion tried to form the League of Nations. This was opposed by many in the Senate, these were the "irrecinsiables *sp?" and were lead by Sen Lodge. The many point that these men opposed was the Clause in Article X (ten). I could dig up the exact clause from my notes if you want but basicly Article X said, any attack on any member of the League WOULD BE an attack on all members therefore, creating a world war. The thinking was the promise of world war would prevent war.

Thus, the treaty was not signed. World War One was not over for the US until 1922, we made a seperate treaty with the Central Powers than.

After the League failed to prevent WWII, mostly because the US was not a member, the UN was formed and supported very much from within the US. That is why we granted premission for them to locate in what used to be part of NYC. The UN was sought by the US, and Pres Truman. FDR was dead by the end of the war.

Because we DID sign the UN Charter and we are a member of the UN, one of the 5 Sec Con members, we are accountable to the UN.

Therefore, when The Sec Gen Alian (sp?) said the Iraq War was illegal it does bind and it does make the Iraq War illegal. So the rest of your post would be inncorrect because you confused the UN with the LoN, which is familiar common.

[Enda]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Oct 1 2004, 10:34 PM'] Because we DID sign the UN Charter and we are a member of the UN, one of the 5 Sec Con members, we are accountable to the UN.

Therefore, when The Sec Gen Alian (sp?) said the Iraq War was illegal it does bind and it does make the Iraq War illegal. [/quote]
Jacob, I don't care what some treaty signed 60 years ago says [i]noone has the right to tell us what to do on our national security issues[/i].

[peach_cube]

Dukakis (sp?) "won" the first debate in George Sr., Perot "won" the first debate with George Sr. and Billy. then the Gore thing too.

Anyways, I think people were kind of expecting more from George. Therefore the polls show that people think that Kerry "won" the debate. It's kind of like in baseball. You may win the first game of the series but that doesn't mean you are the better team, It's who wins the series that matters.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Enda' date='Oct 1 2004, 08:40 PM'] Jacob, I don't care what some treaty signed 60 years ago says [i]no one has the right to tell us what to do on our national security issues[/i]. [/quote]
Umm some treaty signed 60 years ago saved our butts more than once during the Cold War... some treaty signed 60 years ago saved American lives in Somila... some treaty signed 60 years ago saved American lives and dollars by aiding in Peacekeeping... some treaty signed 60 years ago would be defending us if we were invaded... some treaty signed 60 years ago would be giving us help if we suffered from a natural distar and were unable to take care of it ourselves........

No one can tell us NOT to invade when it is clear that there is a threat and WMD or whatever are present. However both some treaty signed 60 years ago and US intel said there were no weapons, no threat.