CNN.com: 79% say Kerry won debate - Page 2

Blackmane · 10-02-2004, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhoid

What about Bushs "catch" phrases?

" and America is safer"

"God bless America"

I think he has said those enough to boost them into catchphrase status.

Everyone says God bless America. I was more talking about things that only Kerry likes to say. But, Bush did say America is safer a lot. But, unlike Kerry's dumbass "help is on the way", saying america is safer is stating something that has meaning.

And, yes, being president is hard work. I would not like to have that job of being responsible for an entire nation of people and everything that happens to them.

Typhoid · 10-02-2004, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackmane

Everyone says God bless America. I was more talking about things that only Kerry likes to say. But, Bush did say America is safer a lot. But, unlike Kerry's dumbass "help is on the way", saying america is safer is stating something that has meaning.

Are you dense?

Kerry saying "Help is on the way" is an underlying metaphor for sayin America will elect him.

And saying "America is safer" doesnt have meaning. He says it alot every speech he gives. It shows he has no stronger points in his speeches, so he has to constantly bring up terrorist attacks. Plus he constantly (except for the debate i think, i didnt watch all of it) uses 9/11 as a reason to elect him. Like, he was there, so they shoul;d elect him.

And Bush is proposing all these things he plans to do with his presidency, things that need to be done. Things he promised would be done last election if he was elected.

The Germanator · 10-02-2004, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackmane

And, yes, being president is hard work. I would not like to have that job of being responsible for an entire nation of people and everything that happens to them.

Yeah, and that's the point to my sarcasm. He's the ****ing President. OF COURSE it's hard work. He repeats this and tells us like it's some sort of revelation.

KillerGremlin · 10-03-2004, 12:54 AM

I thought that the fundamentals of both candidates where so similar, that the basis on which they where arguing was skewed and irrelevant.

Personally, I felt that Kerry was better composed then Bush. However, that's the main thing that people are judging the winner/loser of the debate by, because it is certainly not being based off the "facts" or "ideas" presented by the candidates in the debate.

If people judged the candidates by the information that was presented, they would most likely scratch their heads, and say something along the lines of: "what the ****, these two guys are nearly identical, only Kerry has some pretty skewed short-term goals which won't get accomplished any faster then if Bush were in charge."

hostilecrayon has the right idea, but I would vote for Bush instead of Kerry. Bush, I think, knows that he ****ed up. But, he's holding steady. Kerry is going with what the people want, and unfortunately, in a time of war, what the people want may not be in the best interest of the war.

But does it really matter who wins the election? The war on terrorism isn’t going away, America still has to deal with Iraq, and Russia’s nuclear supply isn’t going to disappear during Kerry’s first year in office.

Typhoid · 10-03-2004, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Russia’s nuclear supply isn’t going to disappear during Kerry’s first year in office.

Possibly it will.

Kerry has said numerous times he wants to gain respect for America in the world through diplomacy, not force.

Im not saying that guarantees anything, im just saying its better than the diplomatic talks Bush is doing. But I like Kerry, because while he seems all uppity about keeping a strong military, he also wants to establish better communications (lack of better word) with other countries so they respect the US more.

Blackmane · 10-03-2004, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Possibly it will.

Kerry has said numerous times he wants to gain respect for America in the world through diplomacy, not force.

Im not saying that guarantees anything, im just saying its better than the diplomatic talks Bush is doing. But I like Kerry, because while he seems all uppity about keeping a strong military, he also wants to establish better communications (lack of better word) with other countries so they respect the US more.

Diplomacy or not, these countries are not going to follow us any faster. It is ridiculous to think that having a different leader is going to change other countries opinion of America in general. People don't like us not because we are a powerful nation so much as they dislike us for what we stand for.

Besides, Kerry says he can unite the world with diplomacy, but those are just empty words. I can guarantee he doesn't know any other nation leader that has spoken to him and said, "If you are elected, we will follow you." or even a, "If you did a better job than Bush did and were nicer to us, we will be more friendly to you." Kerry's assumptions are meaningless because they have no backing.

Now, I'm not saying it can't be done, but I mean, that is his MAIN support for how he will fight the war in Iraq better. In fact, I don't remember him mentioning ANY other way that he would fight the war in Iraq better. If that is the only thing he plans to do differently, then why should I vote for him?

Its funny because we have the support of 30 nations, but because we don't have France, Germany, and Russia, everybody thinks that we are fighting this alone. Eh, I guess they are all that matters.

Oh, and Kerry's plan for removing Russia's extra uncontrolled nuclear material is based on the Russian's support as well. I can almost guarantee he won't get it done in 4 years.

The Germanator · 10-03-2004, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackmane

Its funny because we have the support of 30 nations, but because we don't have France, Germany, and Russia, everybody thinks that we are fighting this alone. Eh, I guess they are all that matters.

Yeah, those 30 other countries that have contributed a whopping 10% of the economic costs and 10% of the troops in the war. The U.S is basically fighting it alone.

Blackmane · 10-03-2004, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Germanator

Yeah, those 30 other countries that have contributed a whopping 10% of the economic costs and 10% of the troops in the war. The U.S is basically fighting it alone.

Oh, and I suppose France will come in and throw in 20% or more? That's wishful thinking. IF they contributed ever, it would be similiar to Great Britain's contributions.

hostilecrayon · 10-03-2004, 04:45 PM

I agree that Kerry isn't much better than Bush. He has unstable voting records and a lot of contraversy follows him around. However, I still think he's better than Bush. Bush has done nothing but screw up. He pissed off a lot of our allies, he went to war and then went "Oops, what we went for wasn't true." I'd rathar give Kerry a chance than knowingly re-elect someone I'm sure doesn't know what he's doing.

Quote:

You want to talk about useless catch phrases...

"Help is on the way"

"Reporting for duty!"

Hey, I never said he doesn't use them. They both do. As a matter of fact, 98% of what comes out of either of their mouths happen to be fallacious arguments or lies. It's the way politics work today, sadly.

GiMpY-wAnNaBe · 10-05-2004, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackmane

People don't like us not because we are a powerful nation so much as they dislike us for what we stand for.
.

what DO you stand for?

I personally have a skewed and lower vision of America since after Bush entered the white house, i dislike America for it's leader's actions, but have nothing against Americans themselves.