Awww yeah dawg. I knew there would be a thread debating the debate, and I wasn’t proven wrong. It seems as if nothing in America isn’t open to being analyzed, sometimes even the analysis is a point for analysis.
Not to be a dick about this whole thing, as I don’t really ever post, but this whole thread, I hope, everyone is doing for fun.
The only thing that matters is who came off better in it. Honestly, I didn’t see it, as I was working, but it seems Kerry was the better speaker, judging from everything I’ve heard.
The whole point is, all in all, that’s all that mattered. I hear people talk about the Demo vs Rebup thing…Thats all it is. Their names mean absolutely nothing. Kerry…Bush…It could be Homer Simpson and some jerkoff from Survivor up there. As long as one is a republican and one is a democrat it’s not going to make that much difference, cuz they’d have said the same things.
People are saying Kerry jumped on things quicker…He remembered his lines better, nothing more, nothing less. “Bush forgot what he was thinking…” No, he forgot what he was fed. FED. That’s all there is to it.
These guys don’t just go out there and talk, and see who wins. Or even research their ‘opponent’ and the facts. Twisting facts is fine…Everyone does it, from Jr High debaters to the presidential candidates. That’s fine. The fact is, they’re fed lines. “Say this first”, “When he says this (cuz each one has a team of prolly 100 people more suited than themselves to be president, if being the president actually meant anything, telling them what to do and say) then you say this” etc. They’re figureheads for a national party. No more, no less.
So, not to go on and on and offend even more people than I already have with this post, Ill just cut it short. Hey, I still love everyone here…we’re all T-Nation members and have at least one thing in common. That being my point. Whether youre a republican or a democrat, you have nothing in common with either of these men, or them with you, and neither could really give a shit less what any of us think. vote on the card = money in their pocket. They’re there to serve THEIR ‘party’, which, ultimately, serves THEIR pocketbooks. Just my opinion.
RSU:
“Why can’t Kerry criticize the war – it’s not HIS war!”
True it’s not Kerry’s war, however he wants it to be! He is running for President and has stated “we must not lose in Iraq.” That makes Bush’s point quite valid. You cannot go from someone who states “wrong war wrong time.” To someone who now has to lead our troops and rally other world leaders. What can you then say? “I was just kidding about wrong war, I actually believe in it now.” He could also rely on his old line: “I voted for it before I voted against it.” As the President said: “mixed messages” are a bad thing to send our troops and the world!
You claim that Bush had no point. I think you are reluctant to give the President any credit. His point was driven home by the very redundancy that you accuse him of! He cited Kerry’s change of heart and weakness on Iraq on many, many occasions. That was in fact “his point.” I (Bush) am a strong leader, Kerry is a flip flopper etc.
Yes, more people voted for Al Gore, and I know that bothers you. However, we have in this country an electoral system for choosing our President. I know you are aware of this. That’s why there is no Gore administration, which I am very thankful for!
You guys are so retarded. Taking things out of context and then claiming that one can’t transition from one situation to another is unbelievable.
For example, Kerry can certainly say that the reasons for going into Iraq were incorrect, but that now that we are there there are the realities of the situation that must be faced.
Also, criticising the size of the coalition and the relative contribution of the other members is totally valid. In no way will that mean that current members will have to feel denigrated. I’m pretty sure current coalition members would also like to have more partners in this effort.
I’m really not trying to argue for Kerry, but folks, you have to at least use your brains a little bit if you want to have a reasonable conversation on the matter.
Regardless, it matters not what lame arguments we hurl at each other in this forum. What matters is what the opinion polls reflect. What has the mass public taken away from all of this?
So are you correcting yourself? Dilbert. Could 10 guys control a zone in Iraq?
[quote]JandersUF wrote:
My interpretation was that he was referring to the numerous suicide bombers and terrorists coming across the borders rather freely. He wanted to hammer home his point about border security, or the lack thereof. Either he considers a bomber that kills 40 kids a weapon of mass destruction (an arguable point, I would say), or he was using a bit of figurative speech, say hyperbole, metaphor, or whatnot.
Does that work for you? I think that interpratation makes sense, kind of a "we have suicide bombers-- real weapons of mass destruction[/quote]
Dear Janders,
You are speaking tongue in cheek right?
We can say Kerry made a simple mistake, like when he said “shatters” instead of tatters. Or, he really just doesn’t know what’s going on himself, and he didn’t get his lines right. If he really meant the hyperbole you suggest, he would have said it like you just did.
Ask Lumpy what he thinks, he won’t answer me.
Mr. Chen, here is the Kerry quote:
“And now we see beheadings. And we’ve got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day. And they’re blowing people up. And we don’t have enough troops there.”
The sentance structure above, where he says “they’re blowing people up,” with the they being the weapons of mass destruction from the previous sentance supports my interpretation. Obviously no one is using NBC’s over there, so he must be referring to the weapons that are being used: suicide bombers.
Of course, whether or not suicide bombers are truly weapons of mass destruction is a whole other discussion. But purely from a rhetorical standpoint, I thought it sounded good.
Anyway, its certainly not a big deal compared to a lot of other issues in this debate, and this election.
-janders
ZEB,
I understood what Bush was going for, but I don’t think it’s logical.
Kerry thinks the war has been run poorly, so he says so and criticizes the president’s handling of it. However, as president, he’s aware he’s INHERITING the war and must resolve it in the best way possible.
Because he doesn’t approve of the executives that sent the troops to Iraq doesn’t mean he’ doesn’t respect the troops.
On what JandersUF wrote:
Well, you could interpret it that way. There is a big difference in the levels of grammatical accuracy required of written and spoken English. These sentences would not pass as well written. I would still say that even if we take it as loose oral English, we have a list of elements in a series, even though the transcript adds periods. This would mean the elements listed do not define each other.
The main reason I think he made a mistake is the fact that he did not clarify his meaning.
Yes, not much consequence in the overall presentation. I just thought I’d point out that Kerry also makes verbal flub ups.
MikeKubo,
I hear what you’re saying and I appreciate it. You actually make a great point that we should all stop and observe. Every day in here we all file to our side and proceed to play verbal dodgeball, but no one ever wins and all we end up doing is resenting eachother… and over what? You said it. Those people could give a shit less about us except for the lever we turn on Nov 2nd. Other than that, we could be cannon fodder for all they care. Thanks for your post.
Roy:
I join you in your dead on analysis!
RSU:
I would agree with you whole heartedly that criticizing the war is, on it’s face, fair game.
The problem is the words that Kerry chose and the way he went about doing it. Attacking the Iraqi leader as a puppet for example. These are the things that make it difficult for Kerry to lead should he be elected.
I am sure that he respects the troops, however showing it is another matter.
Allawi is only the interim president of Iraq. Team Bush promises that there will be elections in Iraq in January, just a few months from now.
Calling Allawi a puppet may hurt his feelings, but he’s already on his way out. And anyway, he is a puppet, so why not call a spade a spade. We put Allawi in precisely because we need a yes-man in there, while we try to establish security there. So strategically it makes sense. But lets not pretend that this makes Iraq self-governing or sovereign or independant. They’re not there by a longshot.
When Kerry calls Allawi a puppet, he’s just dispelling the false notion that Bush has been promoting in his campaign speeches, that because Allawi is in there that Iraq is now free and now in control of their own destiny.
In calling Allawi a puppet Kerry is using poor judgement! How does insulting a world leader bring us any closer? Furthermore, how do you know that he will in fact not be elected?
Likewise, stating that “it is the wrong war at the wrong time” sends the wrong message to our troops! How do you think the typical GI felt upon reading those words?
By the way a todays USA Today reports that the troops back Bush by about 4 to 1! Is there any wonder why?
Kerry shored up his Frog support with his wonderful debate performance – hopefully he will move there if he loses, but given he hasn’t resigned his Senate seat, I can only dream…
From the International Herald Tribune:
Kerry landslide - in France
Nearly 9 out of 10 people in France would support John Kerry if they could vote in the U.S. election, according to a poll published Friday, Reuters reported from Paris.
The poll came as no surprise in the country that led opposition to the war and whose people were derided as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” by America’s Republicans.
But it underlined concern abroad over U.S. policies and highlighted the gulf that has opened between the United States and France.
Eighty-seven percent of French people would back Kerry and 13 percent would vote for Bush, according to the poll by the CSA research group and published by La Croix newspaper.
Fifty-seven percent thought U.S.-$ French relations would be better under Kerry, while 36 percent thought ties would not change. Seven percent said relations would improve if Bush won a second term; 65 percent said they would stay the same.
“We are in a logic of 'Anything but Bush,” Andre Kaspi, a professor in North American history at Paris’s Sorbonne University, told La Croix. “French people know little about John Kerry, but it doesn’t matter. Whoever the candidate was against George Bush, he would get the same support here.”
Clap clap clap clap. Well, I guess Kerry is human after all.
Okay, on to the meat of the matter.
Okay, I know demigod Bush stated that this is an issue, but it doesn’t make it so. Allawi is a puppet. He was put in place by an external power and rules were set for his rule. This is the definition of a puppet government.
When and if Allawi is an elected leader via the free choice of the Iraqi citizens then he will deserve the title that he is currently using. I am sure that if and when that happens he will be happy as hell to kiss the ass of whoever happens to be the president of the US at that time.
Let’s get realistic here. Bush has already alienated half the world. Blaming Kerry for statements made on the campaigm trail, which are trivial in comparison, is assinine.
Finally, as we all know, the troops are under the command of the administration. As long as the populace is in favor of the troops they will happily do their job – they are professionals. To imply anything else based on political debates is simply insulting to the troops.
What Bush wants to do is simply close any evenues of criticism so that Kerry is not allowed to talk about any screwups that Bush is making. This is the same childish tactic used when Bush states “with us or against us”.
Wake up and smell the political coffee! Finally, if you don’t notice it, I’m not really saying anything in favor of Kerry here. I’m not trying to say Kerry is right, just that he needs to be able to say these things and discuss them with the American public.
If you don’t like his message, then fine, but stop looking for ways to squelch dissenting opinion. Don’t you realize that is what this all boils down to again and again?
I personally know some guys fighting in Iraq that think the war was the “wrong war at the wrong time.” But what is done is done, and being professionals, they are hell-bent to make the best of it now.
Obviously any criticism of the war by Kerry will irritate some of those fighting, but he is rather adament that he supports the troops and will do everything he can to help them. I don’t think, with Kerry’s current stance, the Army will revolt under his leadership 
Its not like he’s calling for an immediate pull out or anything…
Yes, until there is an elected leader of Iraq every other world leader should call the current leader a “puppet.” Great idea! That will surely help us with international affairs. That is the sort of talk you accuse Bush of, yet Kerry is the one who is actually guilty!
I would rather have Bush “alienate half the world” than Kerry alienate our troops! While at the same time lowering morale and possibly inadvertently giving the terrorists encouragement. Perhaps you need to read a bit about Viet Nam to truly understand what I’m suggesting (this is not a put down. I don’t know how familiar you are with recent history).
Finally, I like dissenting opinion. that’s one of the reasons I look forward to posting on the political thread. I encourage you to continue posting. While I think you are quite wrong on many of your assessments, I enjoy your posts. 
Heh, after Kerry wins he won’t have to engage in political debates. Surely you can see that he is stuck with either not voicing his opinion and strategy, as accused by republicans, or he is accused of criticizing the administration and demoralizing the troops.
You can’t have it both ways. It is election time, the troops are going to have to understand he has to present criticism and alternatives. The troops are fighting for democracy right? They do know how a democracy works right?
It is all about finding ways to state that he should not voice his opinion and he should not voice criticism. The Bush administration has been doing this since 9/11. This is so blind followers such as yourself will dismiss everything said against him before it can even reach your brain.
[edited to fix quote label]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
RSU,
I could list quotes, even find liberals who agree with me, but it’d be lost on you, since you’re channeling all your political information through your tinfoil hat.
As is,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134152,00.html
Have a read of the transcript. Good back and forths between the two candidates. Honest pundits realize that this event was good for the race, in that while we may not have learned anything new, we did get a reaffirmation of what makes the men different in terms of their values.
But you have to read with a bit of an open mind - I realize you may lose your pasrtisan lapdog status by giving the debate and balanced and reasonable view, but give it a try.
[/quote]
I watched the debate from beginning to end and thought GWB failed to say ANYTHING that wasn’t on the same level of simplicity that his misleading commercials are on. Aside from sounding like a 5th grader, GWB repeated the same stupid shit over and over from beginning to end, failing to even address the question or appropriately respond to Kerry’s answers.
And nevermind my headgear, you need to highlight some of Bush’s more intelligent points. I still contend you’d be hardpressed to.