The OaO Presidential Debate II Thread

[Guest GreatOne]

*You* get the impression, because -well- you have a warped view on things.

 

So what's supposed to be the new course of action now?

 

Bush is supposed to go back to the U.N. (who has an IMPECCABLE record ofhandling world affairs lately) and beg forgiveness?

 

Then hop on a plane and do the same with Chirac, then Schroeder, then Putin, then everyone else he's 'offended'?

 

I call bullshit.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

since there's internets.. are we on the internet which turns the hearts of children black? or are we on the pussy internet?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

*You* get the impression, because -well- you have a warped view on things.

 

So what's supposed to be the new course of action now?

 

Bush is supposed to go back to the U.N. (who has an IMPECCABLE record ofhandling world affairs lately) and beg forgiveness?

 

Then hop on a plane and do the same with Chirac, then Schroeder, then Putin, then everyone else he's 'offended'?

 

I call bullshit.

I dunno. Am I supposed to know? Again, warped view on things.

 

Take an implication (that wasn't really there in the first place), turn it into an absolute, and then ask questions as if to prove a point; none of which are really relevant to the original discussion.

 

Did MikeSC write a book on how to post in CE?

 

However, I'd say the "new course of action" in regards to 'International Popularity' from the Kerry-side would be to "Get Bush out of Office".

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike.. that progress better involve getting some pants on John Lennon

Lennon hater.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

I'm asking a question, which does not imply a warped view of things. So you didn't comment on Bush 'answering the world'

 

Nevertheless, I am giving you points here, no matter how 'Global Test' or Bacon-inspired it seems...................

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

now my sig is an experiment..

 

but yeah.. no John Lennon ass.. ok?

[Guest Cerebus]

I'm pretty drunk (and by "pretty" I mean really) and i missed most of the debae. Did I miss anything big?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Cerebus.. the president can give you some wood if you need it

[Guest GreatOne]

Yeah there was an ACTUAL debate tonight instead of Larry Johnson vs. Alonzo Mourning deathmatch/FSU-Miami that was the first one.

 

It's safe to say that BOTH candidates greatly improved upon their initial performance, esp Bush

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

And much like MikeSC, I have to explain every single thing I say in extraordinary detail in order for you to completely ignore it.

 

Bushes reply to the "how are you going to get the world to look at us better" was "sometimes we have to do unpopular things, that we think are right, and eventually the world will get over it once they find out it was right too" and left it at that. In other words "I don't care", because nowhere in that did he say he'd change his strategy and no where in there did he say he'd actively repair the damage to the perception of America that the Iraq war left (in case you didn't notice, MILLIONS of people around the world marched against that war). ((If it is at all important, I supported the Invasion of Iraq.))

 

Then I said that could be a good or bad thing, since many Americans hold that isolationist viewpoint of "fuck what the world thinks". I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with that viewpoint. In all actuality, I don't know how to think about it. I can see both sides and haven't really gave it any serious thought. And I don't know HOW in the world you got "The US was never looked at badly pre-Iraq" from that comment... ok, I do... warped view of things... but aside from that, it wasn't at all there.

 

Now, do me a favour, please explain why you bolded those things. I don't quite get that.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

here's another moment which should stick out

 

GIBSON: Mr. President, let's extend for a minute...

 

BUSH: Let me just — I've got to answer this.

 

GIBSON: Exactly. And with Reservists being held on duty...

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

BUSH: Let me answer what he just said, about around the world.

 

GIBSON: Well, I want to get into the issue of the back-door draft...

 

BUSH: You tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we're going alone.

 

There are 30 countries there. It denigrates an alliance to say we're going alone, to discount their sacrifices. You cannot lead an alliance if you say, you know, you're going alone. And people listen. They're sacrificing with us.

 

Bush basically talks over Gibson, ignoring him, and he goes on a rant.

[Styles 0]

Great debate. The format was a lot more comfortable, and Bush especially seemed to be feeling it a lot more.

It's another close one, but I give the edge to Bush who was agressive, assetive and decisive in his answers which is exactly what he needs to be.

Kerry did well, but he had some of the same problems as Bush had in the first debate with the stumbling and indecisevness especially towards the end.

Biggest suprise was I think Bush won the part on Domestic issues.

Bush did a tremendous job dodging loaded questions like the Patriot Act, Supreme Court Nominations and His Biggest Mistakes by spinning them to his strengths, Kerry took his tough questions like on Abortion, Stem Cells, etc. and didn't seem to know how to answet them because its like he didn't want to offend anybody.

The fact that Bush is not afraid to stick to his guns, and take a stand while Kerry tries to please everyone is going to help Bush I think...

[Guest GreatOne]

Emphasis, I don't like using CAPS all the time.....................

 

Bushes reply to the "how are you going to get the world to look at us better" was "sometimes we have to do unpopular things, that we think are right, and eventually the world will get over it once they find out it was right too" and left it at that.  In other words "I don't care", because nowhere in that did he say he'd change his strategy and no where in there did he say he'd actively repair the damage to the perception of America that the Iraq war left (in case you didn't notice, MILLIONS of people around the world marched against that war). ((If it is at all important, I supported the Invasion of Iraq.))

 

And if it means anything I admit he said basically that as well, but why should he have to? I mean we've all seen the effect of what Kerry's grand P-WORD (he just about killed the word off tonight) has had. It's not like Germany and France are about to get over themselves, maybe Chirac and Kerry'll have nice sit-down at WH next year if he gets in, who knows?

 

And I don't know HOW in the world you got "The US was never looked at badly pre-Iraq"

 

How is that a warped view of things? If anything's a warped view of things it's whoever has a problem with it, especially those countries who had a stake in Saddam being in power? Which should kinda tell they actually WEREN'T our allies. Otherwise, big freakin' deal. We invaded Iraq--I assume Saddam wasn't a friend to most of the world, and truth be told, where was this 'world outrage' back in 1990?

[Guest MikeSC]

And much like MikeSC, I have to explain every single thing I say in extraordinary detail in order for you to completely ignore it.

 

Bushes reply to the "how are you going to get the world to look at us better" was "sometimes we have to do unpopular things, that we think are right, and eventually the world will get over it once they find out it was right too" and left it at that. In other words "I don't care", because nowhere in that did he say he'd change his strategy and no where in there did he say he'd actively repair the damage to the perception of America that the Iraq war left (in case you didn't notice, MILLIONS of people around the world marched against that war). ((If it is at all important, I supported the Invasion of Iraq.))

 

Then I said that could be a good or bad thing, since many Americans hold that isolationist viewpoint of "fuck what the world thinks". I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with that viewpoint. In all actuality, I don't know how to think about it. I can see both sides and haven't really gave it any serious thought. And I don't know HOW in the world you got "The US was never looked at badly pre-Iraq" from that comment... ok, I do... warped view of things... but aside from that, it wasn't at all there.

 

Now, do me a favour, please explain why you bolded those things. I don't quite get that.

Leave me out of your inability to express yourself.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Is there anything in the agreement about shouting down a moderator?

 

http://www.oliverwillis.com/stuff/bushflipsout.wmv

[Guest MikeSC]

Is there anything in the agreement about shouting down a moderator?

 

http://www.oliverwillis.com/stuff/bushflipsout.wmv

You can feel free to attempt to portray that as Bush flipping out if you wish.

 

It was a perfect response to Kerry's lame-ass point.

-=Mike

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Excellent exchange tonight. Both were good, but I still get mortified anytime Bush talks about science or the Constitution.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

It would be closer to a perfect response had Bush not talked over the moderator of the debate to make it

 

it's Red meat but Bush's base isn't enough for a victory anyways.

 

But there's some people who wouldn't mind saying the President was "wild-eyed" and all that. Bush in his 30 seconds didn't have enough time to start naming off all the nations before screaming.

[UZI Suicide 0]

Is there anything in the agreement about shouting down a moderator?

 

http://www.oliverwillis.com/stuff/bushflipsout.wmv

 

Well, Kerry said we were going alone, and clearly forgot to mention POLAND, so you can see where GWB feels the need to defend them. Rules be damned.

[St. Gabe 0]

I have a question to raise, why is it that the Bush Campaign seems to believe that there is no gray area. What I mean by this is, when John Kerry talked about mitigating circumstances in certain votes he's made, specifically his vote against the Partial-birth abortion ban, and the need to be diligent about the health of the mother, George Bush said again, that Kerry Voted against it, and that is that. Why is it a bad thing that a little bit of thought goes into Kerry's voting record. What makes it a bad thing to see the potential positives and negatives of a bill and voting, not according to personal belief,or because the bill "sounds good" but according to what is best for those you represent.

 

Not trying to spur anger or discord, just another topic o' discussion.

[2GOLD 0]

I give the edge to Bush and I honestly still have no clue about John Kerry. No clue whatsoever. It was close, I give Bush the slight advantage but nothing to write home about.

 

Neither debate has done anything about my opinion of either man. Hell, I'm starting to think the VP's would be more fun than this.

 

Some of the most boring uninformative television I have ever watched.

[Guest MikeSC]

I have a question to raise, why is it that the Bush Campaign seems to believe that there is no gray area. What I mean by this is, when John Kerry talked about mitigating circumstances in certain votes he's made, specifically his vote against the Partial-birth abortion ban, and the need to be diligent about the health of the mother, George Bush said again, that Kerry Voted against it, and that is that. Why is it a bad thing that a little bit of thought goes into Kerry's voting record. What makes it a bad thing to see the potential positives and negatives of a bill and voting, not according to personal belief,or because the bill "sounds good" but according to what is best for those you represent.

 

Not trying to spur anger or discord, just another topic o' discussion.

The concern of Bush and conservatives (since Bush really isn't that conservative) is that Kerry leaves wiggle room for everything. I don't mind it here and there --- but when your entire platform has wiggle room, there is a problem. I, personally, like core convictions and nothing from Kerry indicates that he has any.

 

"Health of the mother/fetus" is a bit of a cop-out with the PBA, since there are no medical reasons for a partial birth abortion that I can think of (what problem can be FIXED by delivering everything BUT the head, but will lead to death if the head is delivered?)

 

Sometimes, you need to simply say this is right, this is wrong, and leave no gray area.

-=Mike

[Guest Brian]

Is there anything in the agreement about shouting down a moderator?

 

http://www.oliverwillis.com/stuff/bushflipsout.wmv

He's hulking up. He's hulking up.

 

Anyways, isn't Poland pulling out by next year? I vaguely remembering hearing something, maybe on the Daily Show.

[CBright7831 0]

Is there anything in the agreement about shouting down a moderator?

 

http://www.oliverwillis.com/stuff/bushflipsout.wmv

It's no longer available.

 

Someone reup it.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

And if it means anything I admit he said basically that as well, but why should he have to?

 

I dunno. You obviously are one of the people who look at Bush saying that as a plus, rather than a negative. John Kerry sees it as a negative, and there are probably other people like him who say that as well. See, I answered this in my first post (on this subject).

 

How is that a warped view of things?

 

You saw this:

 

QUOTE (Rob E Dangerously @ Oct 8 2004, 11:00 PM)

 

I don't think Bush really answered the question on the woman who talked about our stature in the world and what we'd do.

 

 

 

 

Sure he did.

 

In so many words...

 

"Don't care."

 

Which, depending on how you look at it, could be good or could be bad. I bet a lot of Americans don't care how they're looked at by the rest of the World.

 

as this

 

So what you're saying is the anti-Americanism was COMPLETELY non-existent from these countries pre-Iraq too? gotcha..........

 

I didn't even think you were responding to me with that comment since it was so far off the mark. Hell, I'm still questioning it now. This is a typical "thing" that is done on this board, where -for example- "some" is seen as "all". Where "less" is seen as "none". Where "There is more anti-American sentiment from around the world after the US invaded Iraq" is "So what you're saying is the anti-Americanism was COMPLETELY non-existent from these countries pre-Iraq too?". That is a warped view. You are turning something into an absolute in order to ignore the point. Yes, there was anti-American sentiment before the Iraq war. There is more of it now. Rather than acknowledging that point, you try to spin it. Warped View.

 

I'm asking a _question_, which does not imply a warped view of things. So you _didn't_ comment on Bush 'answering the world'

 

Nevertheless, I _am_ giving you points here, no matter how 'Global Test' or Bacon-inspired it seems...................

 

Lemme further explain my "not getting that".

 

"Question" - you asked more than one question.

 

"Didn't" - I did, I said "I don't know". Somehow you've pinned me as someone who is against Bush on all fronts and who thinks he has better answers. That won't work, cause quite frankly I don't follow American politics and International Politics enough to know the questions let alone the answers. There are reasons I don't come into this folder very often, and there is a reason I am in it right now. I like Presidential Debates. I've said this before. So what I say tends to be based soley from this.

 

_am_ - what points have you given?

 

... and Mike, if I had a nickel every time you've spun something I said into something that was (i)out of context, (ii)conveniently fit into something that you had a 'defense' for, and (iii)was completely different from what I actually said, then I'd have enough money to either be taxed by John Kerry or pandered to by GWB.

[Guest MikeSC]

... and Mike, if I had a nickel every time you've spun something I said into something that was (i)out of context, (ii)conveniently fit into something that you had a 'defense' for, and (iii)was completely different from what I actually said, then I'd have enough money to either be taxed by John Kerry or pandered to by GWB.

Leave your failed attempts at wit in the WWE folder.

-=Mike

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Dude, that was awesome. It fit right into the debate, and it implied that you've done that millions of times.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

For a poll that didn't involve web browsers...

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13549

 

Kerry 47%, Bush 45%

 

Sampling:

Republicans 38%

Democrats 32%

Independents 30%

[Styles 0]

For a poll that didn't involve web browsers...

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13549

 

Kerry 47%, Bush 45%

 

Sampling:

Republicans 38%

Democrats 32%

Independents 30%

So...is Gallup still biased?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm not going to even touch that since it's basically just my opinion, but if they tweaked the statistics with this one like I accuse them of doing, then the reality is even worse for Bush.

 

In a sense, you could say that having such a large Republican sample over Democrats does bias the results. I was just going to let people draw their own conclusions, though. I've argued over too many polls this month.