View Poll Results: Who won the 1st presidential debate

Voters
87. You may not vote on this poll
  • Bush

    18 20.69%
  • Kerry

    59 67.82%
  • Tie

    10 11.49%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 59 of 59
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    So are you suggesting that this is an oxymoron scenario?
    Not those stupid oxen again
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  2. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #42  
    i agree with those election assessments. kerry handled himself well. i will be interested however to see his positions on the upcoming topics in the next two debates.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  3. #43  
    clairegirl, you nailed it on the head. i WILL admit that the southpark comment is a VERY good description of new jersey. nj IS a total joke. no argument there, at all. in fact, i wouldnt at all be surprised if nj has been battered on the show!
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    i agree with those election assessments. kerry handled himself well. i will be interested however to see his positions on the upcoming topics in the next two debates.
    Can you say "Global Test"? Maybe the french will help protect us
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  5. #45  
    ok sure Kerry handled himself pretty good in the debate. SO what.

    What makes him think that even though he has a plan, he is going to suddenly get everyone in the world in on Iraq if he gets elected? What magic trick is he going to pull out of his arse to get everyone on our side all of a sudden if they arent there now? He talks like he is best friends with all the world govts and he can snap his fingers and make everything nice a pretty again.

    Anyone with any common sense knows that that isnt going to happen. He talks about a fresh start. How can you have a fresh start in the middle of a war? To me fresh start means stopping what your doing and starting over. Is that his plan? Pull out of Iraq and then go back in when he has all his 'friends on our side? Again how is this magic alliance going to be accomplished? And lets not forget Kerry said in the debate he is not going to pull out of Iraq, cause it needs to be finished. So again please explain the fresh start.

    Bush's faults aside (and yes he has them), Kerry is just saying whatever he thinks the people want to hear to get elected. He has always done this. His career in congress is full of these feel good statements. He will say what ever he thinks is popular at the time. Really how hard is it to say "Bush made a mistake and I'll do better than he did" after the fact. ANYONE can use hindsight and say that. If we had not invaded Iraq but instead decided to wait and were attacked again, Kerry would be saying "bush made a mistake in waiting and I would have done it differently".

    Sorry I dont want a guy who thinks he's perfect after the fact. Any moron can hindsight his way out of a problem. I'll pass on Kerry. He may have been solid in the debate but all he did for me is confirm his wishy washy consistency.

    May favorite bit from Kerry " I will not waver". Until of course he needs to.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    ok sure Kerry handled himself pretty good in the debate. SO what.

    What makes him think that even though he has a plan, he is going to suddenly get everyone in the world in on Iraq if he gets elected? What magic trick is he going to pull out of his arse to get everyone on our side all of a sudden if they arent there now? He talks like he is best friends with all the world govts and he can snap his fingers and make everything nice a pretty again.
    One thing is for sure: That world diplomacy with respect to Iraq can't get any worse. The English need the U.S. - they will go along with whatever we say. When I say "English" I refer to the government and capitalists there. The Aussies - same as above. And yes, lets not forget Poland...

    Where is everyone else?? I think what Kerry is trying to say is "We don't know if we'll be able to band everyone together -- but we will try harder, much harder than Bush." That was the essence of his message and, quite frankly, he drove it home.

    Anyone with any common sense knows that that isnt going to happen. He talks about a fresh start. How can you have a fresh start in the middle of a war? To me fresh start means stopping what your doing and starting over. Is that his plan? Pull out of Iraq and then go back in when he has all his 'friends on our side? Again how is this magic alliance going to be accomplished? And lets not forget Kerry said in the debate he is not going to pull out of Iraq, cause it needs to be finished. So again please explain the fresh start.
    Again, the point is to reassess what is going on. Do a complete reassessment of Iraq's political climate, its economic development, and future threats to its sovereignty. A fresh start means a fresh way of thinking. You've got to be an ***** to think that as soon as Kerry's elected he's going to pull out the troops. Everybody understands what's ALREADY INVESTED in the war. What many are trying to grapple with where to go from here. That's where the ideologies conflict. For instance, Kerry would like to offer some of Halliburton's hundreds of energy and development contracts to other countries. Not so they can all pillage the country, but so that there's a multilateral effort at the development level. Bush obviously failed at getting multilateral support at the grassroots and military level.

    Bush's faults aside (and yes he has them), Kerry is just saying whatever he thinks the people want to hear to get elected. He has always done this. His career in congress is full of these feel good statements. He will say what ever he thinks is popular at the time. Really how hard is it to say "Bush made a mistake and I'll do better than he did" after the fact. ANYONE can use hindsight and say that. If we had not invaded Iraq but instead decided to wait and were attacked again, Kerry would be saying "bush made a mistake in waiting and I would have done it differently".
    Unfortunately, in hindsight one can say anything to point out problems with the opposition. This is the very nature of politics. You are using a paragraph to restate a political truism.

    It's not hard to say "Bush made a mistake..." - certainly not; and, no one disagrees with you. However, consider Kerry's military record. The guy fought in one of the sloppiest, lopsided excuses for major combat that the world has ever seen. He's seen a side of war that Bush has not. This is fact. He's felt the moral and political post-war dilemma. And dilemma - yes, a word that connotates flip-floping, waivering, etc. Dilemma's are what real people have in real situations. A leader has dilemmas; a tyrant has agendas.

    Sorry I dont want a guy who thinks he's perfect after the fact. Any moron can hindsight his way out of a problem. I'll pass on Kerry. He may have been solid in the debate but all he did for me is confirm his wishy washy consistency.

    May favorite bit from Kerry " I will not waver". Until of course he needs to.
    I don't understand why people make such a big deal about the $87B wavering?? Is it because GOP folks can't make a big deal about anything else (and they haven't)? Kerry, attacked Bush on so many different fronts (and we haven't even gotten to domestic policy)!

    For the record, I would've waivered too. Because if I was led to believe we were going to fight a war based on the initial premises of the CIA and British intelligence, then I would have been for multilateral action. However, the facts were diluted and flat out wrong. Why do I not have the right to change my mind if the facts changed??? The very facts that were the premise for the war: Sadam Husseins harbors terrorists and has WMDs. This was the driving premise for this war (or so did the Bush administration say).

    I would've waivered when I found out this new information and other bits and pieces of fact that were finally starting to fly out the sky. It deeply saddens me that this country consistently manipulates its people into believing anything necessary for political achievment at the cost of impropriety. John Kerry and W Bush both are manipulators (most politicians are, aren't they?!) - but the lessor of the two evils is Kerry, and therefore - the better choice.
  7. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #47  
    you know what the most glaring contradiction was with kerry?
    he agrees that nuclear proliferation is the biggest threat, and that n. korea already has 4 nukes - I believe he said.
    ok now he stated that this is the greatest threat. now he strongly "drove home" the point that we need to have a multilateral approach to the iraq situation - to spread the cost, spread support, etc. all that sounded great.
    NOW, what happened to that multilateral philosophy and its application to north korea - " OUR BIGGEST THREAT" ?
    he wants to go one on one with n. korea - in very much the same style he is claiming bush is making a colossal mistake in his handling of iraq.
    he wants to go multilateral with iraq, which isn't really a threat. "the best way to lead is with the support of other countries", right? well why doesn't he take his own advice into how he handles the WORLD'S GREATEST THREAT?
    he wants to go with bilateral negotiations with the very country he deems our greatest threat, bucking the very manner he thinks we should be using in iraq? he criticizes bush for going it alone in iraq, yet he prefers going it alone in n. korea?
    makes absolutely no sense. why won't anyone raise this huge problem. if bush is so wrong for taking that approach in iraq, why is that style now admissable for kerry in the way he handles n. korea - THE REAL GLOBAL THREAT?
    does anyone else see this as a problem as well? maybe everybody was too busy trying to concentrate on how bush looked at the time.
    but this was a big problem with kerry. at least now, we can work with china to help leverage the right outcome in n. korea. I think they'd be more willing to listen if we go it with china.
    but if we go it alone, they'll be much more likely to tell america they can go stick it. is this beginning to sound familiar to anyone? remind you of another situation that kerry deems as such a COLOSSAL MISTAKE?
    I gotta have more cowbell
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by illustreous
    ..... the lessor of the two evils is Kerry, and therefore - the better choice.
    In your opinion.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  9. #49  
    No contradiction. Iraq and N. Korea are different situations calling for different approaches.

    Iraq has a recent warring history with the U.S./West. A multi-lateral approach is necessary here or else pre-emptive war is the only recourse. Pre-emptive war is the cellar of diplomacy. Bush deemed Iraq as an aggressor. An agressor needs to be dealt with immediately. What's the point of contention? Well, others did not feel that Iraq was an aggressor to the U.S. Was Iraq an aggressor nation unto itself? Of course.

    N. Korea also has a warring history with the West - different times, different circumstances. N. Korea is NOT considered an aggressor nation like Iraq. Having bi-lateral TALKS with N. Korea is much different from a multi-lateral engagement in war with Iraq. IF, however, the U.S. deems it necessary to go to conflict/war with N. Korea, then I would expect to see a multi-lateral, systematic APPROACH to disarmament.

    Kerry apparently feels that the nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to this country and the world. Other nations MAY NOT feel the way he does. Again, he is suggesting bi-lateral talks (at first) not uni-lateral war.

    You are comparing two different political situations through the same eyeglass. One situation is encouraging talks; the other encouraged war.

    Apples and oranges.

    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    you know what the most glaring contradiction was with kerry?
    he agrees that nuclear proliferation is the biggest threat, and that n. korea already has 4 nukes - I believe he said.
    ok now he stated that this is the greatest threat. now he strongly "drove home" the point that we need to have a multilateral approach to the iraq situation - to spread the cost, spread support, etc. all that sounded great.
    NOW, what happened to that multilateral philosophy and its application to north korea - " OUR BIGGEST THREAT" ?
    he wants to go one on one with n. korea - in very much the same style he is claiming bush is making a colossal mistake in his handling of iraq.
    he wants to go multilateral with iraq, which isn't really a threat. "the best way to lead is with the support of other countries", right? well why doesn't he take his own advice into how he handles the WORLD'S GREATEST THREAT?
    he wants to go with bilateral negotiations with the very country he deems our greatest threat, bucking the very manner he thinks we should be using in iraq? he criticizes bush for going it alone in iraq, yet he prefers going it alone in n. korea?
    makes absolutely no sense. why won't anyone raise this huge problem. if bush is so wrong for taking that approach in iraq, why is that style now admissable for kerry in the way he handles n. korea - THE REAL GLOBAL THREAT?
    does anyone else see this as a problem as well? maybe everybody was too busy trying to concentrate on how bush looked at the time.
    but this was a big problem with kerry. at least now, we can work with china to help leverage the right outcome in n. korea. I think they'd be more willing to listen if we go it with china.
    but if we go it alone, they'll be much more likely to tell america they can go stick it. is this beginning to sound familiar to anyone? remind you of another situation that kerry deems as such a COLOSSAL MISTAKE?
  10. #50  
    What Kerry fails to mention is that there is no other company that has the resources of the "H" company. In addition, when he spoke of military cut backs, he mentioned the bunker buster as one of Bush's project - Bush pointed out that it did not begin under his administration. He spoke of killing the project of getting nuclear proliferation under control. What happens if such a weapon is needed? He spoke of getting us out of Iraq and then changed his course. He spoke of getting UN approval before taking action - what if the UN says no? He states he reserves the right to strike first, but getting UN approval, meeting the International Test - what a contradiction. The man is amazing. If he is elected, the one world government so heavily pushed for by France is a step closer. He spoke of sending a clear message - well, he did not. We want to support our troops but he pulls the rug out from them constantly.

    So, who one in my opinion? Mr. Kerry spoke to Mr. Jim and addressed many of his answers to Mr. Jim. President Bush spoke to Mr and Mrs America and looked them in the eye. Little eye contact with the public from Mr. Kerrry.

    Kerry sounded good as he always does, but he rapidly falls apart on the facts. I do wonder what color he will be next time. It is plain to see he was prepared for the debate. Manicured nails (wow on the nail job), tight face, and what a great looking tan - just a few days to get it also. He still has a hugh problem of making us think he can communicate with the common guy. He talks to everyone but the common guy. He also acted nervous and fumbled a couple of times.

    Bush acted nervous, fumbled a few times, did not look like he had a great tan or a manicure. Bush spoke to the common guy. He spoke to me.

    Ben
  11. #51  
    I'm concerned about where all the money for Kerry's grandeos plans is going to come from. Aparently I'm not alone either as it's a major concern wallstreet has with kerry. All those tax breaks bush gave me are going to be taken away and then some to fund Kerry's plans.
    "The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but that we will agree to meet them halfway." -Bernard Avishai
    "Computers are a lot like air conditioners - they both work great until you open windows." -Anonymous

  12. #52  
    Kerry won. That was the original question, so stick with it!
    You don't stop laughing because you grow old. You grow old because you stop laughing.
    -Michael Pritchard
  13. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #53  
    that's nice, oops. anything wrong with discussing the topics he's been said to have won on? no, dont think so. so relax, have a drink, and let the discussions move on.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  14. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #54  
    So, did Kerry cheat or didn't he?
    Talldog
  15. #55  
    According to Gallup Kerry is now even with Bush:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13240
    Animo et Fide
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    So, did Kerry cheat or didn't he?
    He's like ALL the Dems...he never answers the questions.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  17. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    He's like ALL the Dems...he never answers the questions.
    Actually, I was referring to the video flying around the Internet purporting to show that Kerry brought written notes to the debate in violation of the agreed upon rules.
    Talldog
  18. #58  
    1 point to Kerry. Fire the debate coach, that is what the CinC shld do.

    Fox removed the fake nail story which was meant to effect the debate atmosphere: "[A FOXNews] Editor's Note - Earlier Friday, FOXNews.com posted an item purporting to contain quotations from Kerry. The item was based on a reporter’s partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice." http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_art...=1&cname=Media.
    "Now and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates." -Mark Twain
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by TrySpammingMe
    PS....when it comes to allies,
    ... in the words of my 4th grade daughter this morning...

    "Don't forget Poland!"
    http://www.youforgotpoland.com/
    Units - Unit conversion for webOS!
    Treo 180->270->600->650->Blackberry Pearl->Palm Pre
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions