After the Debate

[TDaddy]

I'm not voting....i know people will say "well you can't bitch about shit because you didn't try to make a difference and didn't vote."

but fuck all that seriously...i'm supposed to chose between candidates that i don't trust nor could i fully trust and back? It's like chosing between two evil's...you still chose evil.

just my .02

 

[driverunknown]

Funny Kerry was a lawyer. He knows how to sound good. I love how you guys get on his nuts for sounding so good, and not look into his past. I don't mean the vietnam shit either, but track record.
Kerry doesn't look like he would support gays either. He might say he will, but we know better than that for all you :ghey: out there.

 

[Drake]

Im with Tdaddy on this. This election year pretty much sucks. I do agree that Kerry came though with good clear answers, where Bush keep repeating him self. Also im not a big fan of Bush showing so much emotion. Like when he was talking about the wife he spoke to where her husband died in Iraq. Another feeling i got while bush was talking was that if a soldier isnt in Iraq he isnt as important as the other military men and woman. Maybe its just me that got that impression but whatever. Another thing is I want a president that will be desisive and stand behind his choices 100 pecent. No flip floping no evading questions things like that. I think that both Bush and Kerry are both guilty of these things. And like Tdaddy said im not gonna be voting either. Partly because I moved and its a big hassle to get all your voting stuff changed and another is because I for one wont raise holy hell if my party dosnt win. I do really hope that if Kerry gets elected he produces what he says. I also really hope if Bush gets elected he fixes all of this shit going on in Iraq and all the problems with the economy. If he dosnt within a time period that he establishes then I will all for him being impeached. Bush or Kerry i really dont care at this point. I just want some damn stability in our country. Stability encoureges grow. Agian these are just my opions.

 

[Airjockie]

The Hamster still has my vote

 

[Bob Vila]

I dont see why there's a debate about the debate...

Its all about the electoral college anyways...

BTW - BUSH all the way

 

[DarkHand]

I'm for Badnarik, myself.

But since he has no chance of actually winning, I'm voting for Kerry.

 

[B16]

Originally posted by CRX-YEM+Sep 30 2004, 07:02 PM-->

preluderjs

@Sep 30 2004, 10:53 PM
i think they're both idiots but i'll vote kerry just because i dont wanna see bush in office again.  too bad nader doesnt have a chance.

[post=396964]Quoted post[/post]​

Not only would it be bad to see Bush in office,

Keep in mind, the Next president will be able to Elect up to 4 Supreme Court Justices.

how many of you want to see roe vs. wade reversed, or gay marrage asn stem cell research outlawed. if so you can vote for Bush, if not you NEED to vote for Kerry.

don't just throw your vote away.

[post=396970]Quoted post[/post]​

those are some good points. i would NOT want bush electing 4 justices.
i wish nader had more of a chance, i would vote for him. however, i feel if i do it would just be a waste... so kerry it is.

btw, it looks like msn.com is hosting the entire debate for those who haven't seen it yet.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123725/?GT1=5100

 

[xj0hnx]

Fortunately for me, I read the transcriptions, instead of watching it. I got the benefit of not having to form an opinion based on the manner of public speaking, but instead of what was said. And from what I read, Kerry danced a good dance, but Bush had better answers. When Kerry didn't have an answer, he tried to drop it back in Bushs lap, which you can't do if the man stands fast in his beliefs.

Kerry went back on forth on the issue of Iraq, he did vote to go in, he doesn't believe we should have, he did vote against funds for equipping soldiers, but it's wrong that they went without the tools for the job, which is it? And as far as rpeating himself, I read the same thing several times from Kerry, not to mention rehashing points that are not valid, like we rushed into Iraq, when it's known that Saddam ignored several resolutions.

Then shots himself in he foot by saying it's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, yet thinks he is going to be able to convince other countries to join a war he is saying is wrong? If anyone has the credability(sp) to make people believe in it, it's the man that stood behind his descision from the start. Bush just needs to suck it up and pull others together to get out of this the right way, instead of laying ours dicks on the table. And don't even mention the UN, yea, those monkeys have done a bang up job in the past, anyone remember South Africa? Kerry kept saying he has a plan to end the war, or get us out, but never elaborated on what that might be. "Bring the other nations together", ok, how, and what are you going to do if they listen? He seems to be under the impression that he can start withdrawing troops in six months, if so, then the man has NO concept of things here, or any grasp on the complexity of the situation. He doesn't even believe the Iraqi president can do the job, does he really expect that he can muster the country, and turn it around and still start withdraing in six months? HA.

Also one thing that bothered me with Kerry is at least twice he refers to soldiers fighting in the middle east as "those kids" ASSHOLE, THE TERM YOU WERE LOOKING FOR IS MEN

And another thing that bothered me about both was neither mentioned Al Zarqawi, or Sadr, the two priniciple thorns in our sides here, and the leading perpetrators of terrorist attacks in recent times.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

 

[corvetteguy]

Originally posted by 92b16vx@Oct 1 2004, 08:37 AM

Also one thing that bothered me with Kerry is at least twice he refers to soldiers fighting in the middle east as "those kids" ASSHOLE, THE TERM YOU WERE LOOKING FOR IS MEN

[post=397092]Quoted post[/post]​

I think you were missing what he was trying to do when he used the words those kids.....If they are men then people are less concerned....using the word kids makes people more sensative to the fact that they are out there in the first place....

 

[CRseX84]

Bush all the way

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by corvetteguy+Oct 1 2004, 03:01 PM-->

92b16vx

@Oct 1 2004, 08:37 AM

Also one thing that bothered me with Kerry is at least twice he refers to soldiers fighting in the middle east as "those kids" ASSHOLE, THE TERM YOU WERE LOOKING FOR IS MEN

[post=397092]Quoted post[/post]​

I think you were missing what he was trying to do when he used the words those kids.....If they are men then people are less concerned....using the word kids makes people more sensative to the fact that they are out there in the first place....

[post=397094]Quoted post[/post]​

Well, he can leave the sensitivity to baby kissing. We are fighting a war, and it makes him come across as not grasping the weight of that.

 

[brc80]

Originally posted by 92b16vx@Oct 1 2004, 05:37 AM
Fortunately for me, I read the transcriptions, instead of watching it. I got the benefit of not having to form an opinion based on the manner of public speaking, but instead of what was said. And from what I read, Kerry danced a good dance, but Bush had better answers. When Kerry didn't have an answer, he tried to drop it back in Bushs lap, which you can't do if the man stands fast in his beliefs.

Kerry went back on forth on the issue of Iraq, he did vote to go in, he doesn't believe we should have, he did vote against funds for equipping soldiers, but it's wrong that they went without the tools for the job, which is it? And as far as rpeating himself, I read the same thing several times from Kerry, not to mention rehashing points that are not valid, like we rushed into Iraq, when it's known that Saddam ignored several resolutions.

Then shots himself in he foot by saying it's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, yet thinks he is going to be able to convince other countries to join a war he is saying is wrong? If anyone has the credability(sp) to make people believe in it, it's the man that stood behind his descision from the start. Bush just needs to suck it up and pull others together to get out of this the right way, instead of laying ours dicks on the table. And don't even mention the UN, yea, those monkeys have done a bang up job in the past, anyone remember South Africa? Kerry kept saying he has a plan to end the war, or get us out, but never elaborated on what that might be. "Bring the other nations together", ok, how, and what are you going to do if they listen? He seems to be under the impression that he can start withdrawing troops in six months, if so, then the man has NO concept of things here, or any grasp on the complexity of the situation. He doesn't even believe the Iraqi president can do the job, does he really expect that he can muster the country, and turn it around and still start withdraing in six months? HA.

Also one thing that bothered me with Kerry is at least twice he refers to soldiers fighting in the middle east as "those kids" ASSHOLE, THE TERM YOU WERE LOOKING FOR IS MEN

And another thing that bothered me about both was neither mentioned Al Zarqawi, or Sadr, the two priniciple thorns in our sides here, and the leading perpetrators of terrorist attacks in recent times.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

[post=397092]Quoted post[/post]​

Could not have said it better myself

 

[spectacle]

first and foremost....Kerry won the debate. I don't think there's much anyone can argue for that. He is just a better speaker, period. But Bush still has my vote.

All that stood out to me from Kerry was he is the type of person that moves along with the crowd. Post 9/11 it was the mentality of the country that we need to kick some ass and bring SOMEONE to justice for what happened. Now for whatever reason some intelligence came acrooss the administrations desk that said "Iraq is a threat". Welll this is post 9/11 folks, we can't afford to wait anymore. So Bush says let's go get em'. We go and Kerry supports. Now when we actually get over there and people start dying, now all of a sudden its like "ummm maybe this wasn't the right thing to do". BULLSHIT SIR. It is a war. People die. It is a different time now and we have to b on the offensive before they hit us again. Once the threat levels calmed down and people started feeling safe again America began to forget how much the world had changed....Kerry then changed his position. You can't do that today. You must standfast in your beliefs and lead the country to victory, which I believe Bush is doing.

Had Kerry outlined a better plan then what we have now...I probably would feel different. But if all you have to convince me is "I can do better", you sir can take attitude back to the Senate where you came from.

Bush may be an idiot, but @ least he diligent in his belief that the #1 priority of this country is security by offense. September 10, 2001 I would have voted for Kerry...but not today.

 

[phunky.buddha]

I don't think Kerry was going back and forth on his position in Iraq. He stated everything very clearly- Iraq was definitely a threat, but it wasn't where we should have focused our efforts first. Since we're there already, we'll wrap it up- both guys agree on that- but we should have gone to Afghanistan first.

I honestly think that the "flip flop" bullshit is just oversimplification by the Republican party to the general American public to make it look like Kerry can't make up his mind. Anyone with a brain can see that the issue is more complex than the Bush party would like people to believe.

 

[Battle Pope]

Hehe. And we all know about those Americans. Whoever presents it simplest HAS to be the more resposible leader.

Nader would have my vote, but I don't want to feel like I've wasted it. So, I'm voting Kerry. Probably the lesser of two idiots.

 

[brc80]

Originally posted by Calesta@Oct 1 2004, 09:02 AM
I don't think Kerry was going back and forth on his position in Iraq. He stated everything very clearly- Iraq was definitely a threat, but it wasn't where we should have focused our efforts first. Since we're there already, we'll wrap it up- both guys agree on that- but we should have gone to Afghanistan first.

[post=397142]Quoted post[/post]​

For some reason i thought we did that?

 

[spectacle]

Originally posted by brc80+Oct 1 2004, 05:14 PM-->

Calesta

@Oct 1 2004, 09:02 AM
I don't think Kerry was going back and forth on his position in Iraq. He stated everything very clearly- Iraq was definitely a threat, but it wasn't where we should have focused our efforts first. Since we're there already, we'll wrap it up- both guys agree on that- but we should have gone to Afghanistan first.

[post=397142]Quoted post[/post]​

For some reason i thought we did that?

[post=397151]Quoted post[/post]​

trust me we did and are still there today. its just not on the front page anymore so people tend to forget

 

[phunky.buddha]

Originally posted by Battle Pope+Oct 1 2004, 12:12 PM-->

Nader would have my vote, but I don't want to feel like I've wasted it. So, I'm voting Kerry. Probably the lesser of two idiots.

[post=397149]Quoted post[/post]​

I wouldn't ever vote for Nader... if he had his way, we'd all be riding around on bicycles and Segways. He's the asswipe that killed the Corvair because he didn't know shit about vehicle dynamics. "It's unsafe" was all it took for the car to go belly up on sales.

brc80@Oct 1 2004, 12:14 PM
For some reason i thought we did that?

[post=397151]Quoted post[/post]​

We did- we just didn't do as much as we should have over there. If we committed the same amount of resources to hunting Osama as we have for nailing Saddam, just imagine what we could have gotten accomplished.

 

[MaaseyRacer]

Originally posted by Calesta@Oct 1 2004, 09:21 AM

I wouldn't ever vote for Nader... if he had his way, we'd all be riding around on bicycles and Segways. He's the asswipe that killed the Corvair because he didn't know shit about vehicle dynamics. "It's unsafe" was all it took for the car to go belly up on sales.

[post=397155]Quoted post[/post]​

Did you read "Unsafe At Any Speed"? He has a whole book with huge chapters dedicated to the Corvair, and its "safety." Not to mention the rest of the auto industry. It is because of him and his lobying that we even have seat belts and air bags in cars. He is not anti-veichle, and he never has been, he is just for the coruption of the auto industry when it comes to pollution, and pollutants.
It was Nader who brought the issues with the Pinto to the public after many fatal accidents, not Ford. It was the same deal with the corvair and GM, he did a lot of the research and he was extremely convincing with his results.

 

[phunky.buddha]

No, I didn't read his book- I just blame him for the death of the Corvair, no matter what other good things he's done for the auto industry.



Nah, Nader's ok- he just seriously doesn't stand a chance of doing anything but take away votes from either candidate- and I've even seen an interview with him where he says his entire goal this year is to take away votes from Bush so that he doesn't get reelected. I've got no problem with that.