Who Won The Presidential Debate?

[crusader1234]

Kerry won - if you think otherwise you have no idea how to debate. Seeing as how this debate was on foreign policy - i'm a foreigner - abortion/gay marriage has nothing to do with it. Kerry won by a longshot... Bush's ignorance showed through when he said "They attacked us first!" and Kerry had to point out it was Mr. Bin Laden, not Iraq. A flustered president seemed like the annoying grade 3 girls who think they have a future in the law profession as if to say "I know you are but what am I?". Pathetic.

To say that Bush won this debate is totally biased and uneducated - and saying Kerry won the debate is NOT a sin; its a fact. If they were being marked, Bush would have lost by a landslide. He was unprepared and allowed himself to appear flustered.

[Enda]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Oct 1 2004, 10:45 PM']Umm some treaty signed 60 years ago saved our butts more than once during the Cold War...[/quote]
No, I believe it was Ronald Reagan and the Pope who saved our butts during the Cold War. UN, not in the picture as I recall.

[quote]some treaty signed 60 years ago saved American lives in Somila...[/quote]
You've obviously never seen Black Hawk Down. UN rules killed innocent civilians [i]and[/i] our troops.

[quote]some treaty signed 60 years ago saved American lives and dollars by aiding in Peacekeeping...[/quote]
Yeah, but do they need to be telling us what to do?

[quote]some treaty signed 60 years ago would be defending us if we were invaded...[/quote]
Europe, come to our defense?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[quote]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........[/quote]
Right, becuase our ecconmy is so weak, and our government so poor...

In either case, do they need to be telling us what to do?

[quote]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.[/quote]
Um, yes they did. Everybody said he had WMD (even the French). The only people who claimed they didn't were the family members of defected scientits and they said the samething prior to the First Gulf War. Every shread of reliable evidence indicated he had them.

Edited October 2, 2004 by Enda

[crusader1234]

Enda, I really have to take issue with that last post. Your ethnocentric comments about the irrelevance of the UN are insulting to me as a non-American.

The whole world was NOT in agreement on the WMD situation - Canada didn't agree for starters...

As well, if these shreds or evidence were so reliable and all pointed to him having WMD's, why can't you find any? Bush admitted he was wrong about the WMDs, its time for everyone to face facts and do the same.

[curtins]

neither Bush or kerry won the debate- it was a draw- bush could have done better i think- but i dont think kerry "won" the debate.

[Iacobus]

[quote]No, I believe it was Ronald Reagan and the Pope who saved our butts during the Cold War.  UN, not in the picture as I recall.[/quote]

No not quite. The Cold War started in 1945 and not 1981. JFK used the UN to prevent nuclear war over Cuba. The UN was the meeting place for the USSR and the US. Without the UN, the Popes (there were more than one) and Reagan would have been irreleveant.

[quote]You've obviously never seen Black Hawk Down.  UN rules killed innocent civilians [i]and[/i] our troops.
[/quote]

Watch it again maybe. Or read the book. Or the accounts of the soilders. The UN was the group who pulled our troops out. They did not kill civiallians or our troops. THe UN ROE were to not engage unless engaged. Strangly those were the same ROE for the US Marines and other troops.

[quote]Yeah, but do they need to be telling us what to do?[/quote]

I don't think they have ever told us [i]what[/i] to do. And moreover, by your logic, what gives us the right to tell them what to do?

[quote]Europe, come to our defense?[/quote]

Yes, that is the point. When we need help because if someone invades or attacks us we will need EU armys, industries and funds. Face it.

[quote]Right, becuase our ecconmy is so weak, and our government so poor...[/quote]

If some happens, ie a drought or devasting thing, and the Midwest goes under... okay. That will reduce your crop output, thus reducing trade, thus reducing income, thus weaking the economy, thus weaking the goverment.

Say, a nuclear weapon goes off in the US.

Things like this would require help.

[quote]Um, yes they did.  Everybody said he had WMD (even the French).  The only people who claimed they didn't were the family members of defected scientits and they said the samething prior to the First Gulf War.  Every shread of reliable evidence indicated he had them.[/quote]

You are mistaken. The UN and the Euros and the CIA and the Brits all had data saying "NO." That was ignored.

Sometimes I can see why some people hold such low views of Americans.

[curtins]

the un is useless

thats why thousands are dying in sudan

because the UN is good for NOTHING and they sit around while the poorest of the poor are being killed, raped, vandilized and stuff like that

[Iacobus]

[quote name='curtins' date='Oct 1 2004, 09:16 PM'] neither Bush or kerry won the debate- it was a draw- bush could have done better i think- but i dont think kerry "won" the debate. [/quote]
I am going to comment on this.

A tie would be a victory for Kerry because this issue is Bush's "key" issue. National Sec, forgien policy, Iraq, etc are the big "pluses" for Bush. If Bush was just able to "hold his own" against Kerry on these issues, than it would be a defeat for Bush due to his inabilty to trash his oppoenent in "Kerry's weaker spot." Kerry has a major edge on Bush on domestic issues and just gained some on FP grounds. Bush should be worring.

[Enda]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Oct 1 2004, 11:21 PM']No not quite. The Cold War started in 1945 and not 1981. JFK used the UN to prevent nuclear war over Cuba. The UN was the meeting place for the USSR and the US. Without the UN, the Popes (there were more than one) and Reagan would have been irreleveant.[/quote]
You can be a revelant debating society and not legislate to other nations, and secondly the most those "talks" did was show the world we were right about Russia giving Cuba nukes because of our photographs. The bottom line was we could have just plastered them all over the media and it would've had the same affect.

Of course I know their was more than one Pope during the Cold War. Only one, however, actually did anything to end it.

[quote]Watch it again maybe. Or read the book. Or the accounts of the soilders. The UN was the group who pulled our troops out. They did not kill civiallians or our troops. THe UN ROE were to not engage unless engaged. Strangly those were the same ROE for the US Marines and other troops.[/quote]
You negelct that under Un rules you can't fire upon someone, even if they are charging at you with a gun, until they shoot at you first, which, by giving the enemy the first shot, account for most of the American causilties in Somilia. Their rules also got killed innocent civilains who were trying to get food in UN "safe zones" because they were to lazy to defend them and wouldn't let us do it.

[quote]I don't think they have ever told us [i]what[/i] to do.[/quote]
Koffi Annan calls the war "illegal, and they've never told us what to do? Huh?

[quote]And moreover, by your logic, what gives us the right to tell them what to do?[/quote]
Well gee, we're not only a member antion, but founded the blasted thing, sustain it's exsitence with our money, and they use our troops. Yep, no right whatsoever.

[quote]Yes, that is the point. When we need help because if someone invades or attack us we will need EU armys, industries and funds. Face it.[/quote]
Considering we have the worlds strongest military I fail to see it. Oh, and we make our own weapons.

In either case Europe has [i]never[/i] come to our defense. Hence my laughter.

[quote]If some happens, ie a drought or devasting thing, and the Midwest goes under... okay. That will reduce your crop output, thus reducing trade, thus reducing income, thus weaking the economy, thus weaking the goverment.

Say, a nuclear weapon goes off in the US.

Things like this would require help.[/quote]
Those are pretty far fetched scenorios. I don't think one little incident is going to turn the US into a thrid world country.

And either case they still don't have a right to tell us what to do.

[quote]You are mistaken. The UN and the Euros and the CIA and the Brits all had data saying "NO." That was ignored.[/quote]
Well the Brits defently didn't say that, and I've already proven that CIA didn't either. Maybe you should try proving your points once in awhile instead of simply saying things.

[quote]As well, if these shreds or evidence were so reliable and all pointed to him having WMD's, why can't you find any? Bush admitted he was wrong about the WMDs, its time for everyone to face facts and do the same.[/quote]
Everybody's goign to be wrong at some point. Welcome to a world run by humans.

As for Bush admiting he was wrong, ok, so? That doesn't mean he admited he [i]lied[/i]. :rollseyes:

Edited October 2, 2004 by Enda

[Iacobus]

In the intrests of Charity, I shaln't reply.

[Ash Wednesday]

There is absolutely no sin in saying Kerry won the debate. I think he did well for himself, though I'm not so sure it was enough. Kerry is very well known for doing well when his back is against the wall. Overall, as one article put it best, Kerry fought, and Bush "survived." Voter opinion was not changed after the polls -- in fact, both candidates gained points.

Voters still viewed Bush as more reliable and capable of handling the job. I'm not saying this is necessarily the truth, but that is the reality of the perception. Is Kerry going to be a hawk or a dove in all this? Meh. I can't tell. That's the problem the American public has with him. When it comes to war, you're either IN or OUT. Kerry wants to please people and win the popularity contest, but if he was in the office, what would he do about all this? I can't tell. Neither can the public!

CNN (yes, CNN pointed all of this out!) had some interesting things to say about this: Mondale won debate#1 in 84, Dukakis in 88, Perot in 92, and Gore in 2000. None of them won the election.

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/kerry.ppw/"]http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/kerry.ppw/[/url]

As for the issues, I think which issue is stronger for the President depends on what is going on in the news. That is the bottom line. Iraq has become more violent, so personally I think that's Bush's biggest liability right now. I think it's been his biggest liability during the entire election, and is the biggest reason why so many people hate him.

Had Iraq stabilized and we had sunk into recession, believe me, we would not be even be discussing Saddam and Osama. (This was the beginning of a new quarter in economics, and the news and outlook today was very good. Is this a factor in the election? Ya sure, you betcha.)

I understand where Bush is getting at, and his policy is clear: to build a presence in the middle east much like we had a presence along the Iron Curtain. I can see a string of military bases popping up in the mideast while the ones in Europe get shut down.

But I am not so sure that we will have the same kind of cooperation with the people in the Middle East that we did with Europe.

Don't worry though. Kerry will not get my vote, and I don't think he will win this election, either.

The thing that makes me cry, though, is that people write me off as being irrational for not supporting Kerry because of abortion and family issues. When did it become so unsavory and irrational for people to consider these things to be important and deciding factors? Why are we viewed as being so unrealistic and intolerant because we believe deep down it is in the best interest of society and social stability, that we keep the traditional family structure intact?




:angry:

It's Friday, everyone. Pray the rosary for peace and prosperity (it will do more than bickering)!

And let's dance with the banana.

[crusader1234]

Good post subu - one problem, Bush's approval rating didnt change. Kerry gained poitns and bush stayed the same.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Oct 1 2004, 10:28 PM'] Good post subu - one problem, Bush's approval rating didnt change. Kerry gained poitns and bush stayed the same. [/quote]
Aha, perhaps with some sources, but it depends on which poll and who you ask. All this spinning puts us in front of a funhouse mirror. I still think Bush really would have had to foul up, though.

Someone in the press predicted a tighter race in the last month, and they were right. Sometimes I wonder if the press does this on purpose to boost ratings.

P.S. I'm not subu -- subu is "Art Nerd"

PM me if you want me to explain

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

[quote]As well, if these shreds or evidence were so reliable and all pointed to him having WMD's, why can't you find any? Bush admitted he was wrong about the WMDs, its time for everyone to face facts and do the same. [/quote]


Is it possible that maybe, just because none were found, means that perhaps they were moved?

I'd like an honest answer: Do you really think that, if Suddam [b]had[/b] WMD that he'd let them stay in one place, in Iraq, when he knew that the US was going to invade and look for them? Is it possible that Suddam had the WMD moved and taken over country lines into a different country.


Remember: Suddam had the capabilities of making WMD, and taking into the account of Suddam, there is a high possibility that they had been made, and then transported out of the country. Could it be possible that a scenario like that took place?


Icabous:

Thank you for clearing that up. It's been ages since I took any form of History, and History was my worst class in school.

[Brother Adam]

Kerry won the battle, yes, but Bush one the war.

How's that for a play on words!

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 2 2004, 11:59 AM'] Kerry won the battle, yes, but Bush one the war.

How's that for a play on words! [/quote]
It'd be great if Bush [b]won[/b] the war, not [b]one[/b] the war!