Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever

How would you see the debate?

i think it's unfair to have bush outside, where there are so many sharp objects and dangerous roads and bad people around…………

he's not capable of doing the buttons on his shirt nevermind watching the crosswalks………….poorbushie

it just proved again that Bush is unable to think on his feet and does not have near the grasp of issues that most candidates at this level have, which makes it truly amazing that he is president, somehow he gets people to vote for him

A president shouldn't smirk. And a lady never tells…

I know smart people who say they will vote Republican next time. At this point I would really like some personal insight. I must be physcopathically narcissistic, but I am finding it really hard to understand.

Mr.Frozen versus The Joker(Smirkenstein)

I'm surprised that neither used the, "Riddle me this…" tagline from Batman. It would've been a surefire stinger.

It's the ideology involved. At this point the two parties are so divided on certain core issues that most people aren't even voting for the president anymore. They're voting for the person that at least has the same policies in mind as what you'd like to see happening. I'm sure the bit about the "international test" is gonna be a topic of that sort. liberals like the idea of more international government, conservatives want to preserve the sovereignty of nation states.

How long until that glittering Islamic showplace of democracy???

Originally posted by Arthwys:
that most people aren't even voting for the president anymore. They're voting for the person

Is the president not a person?

Please go back to the start and say what you were trying to the first time.

What Arthwys was trying to say is that when things are this divided, people retreat to their ideologies and vote for whichever candidate unit best meshes with these ideologies, irregardless of the fact that one can't quite decide what he does or doesn't support and the other one isn't the swiftest boat on the Mekong.

I thought they both looked and sounded horrible.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:


I thought they both looked and sounded horrible.

But you are coming from the viewpoint of bush fanboy? If you come in undecided or for Kerry I think you would see it differently.

So what he was saying is they will kneejerk to the parties of their parents. Oh joy!

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

I thought they both looked and sounded horrible.

i don't think kerry sounded horrible………..but it's nice to know you thought bush did………….

Really?

Bush was expected to stutter and repeat himself until the yellow light came on and he could safely stop and nod his head. And that's exactly what he did.

Kerry was expected to look strong and take the offensive. Instead, he shifted from foot to foot, leaned back, looked defensive, tried to turn a foreign policy debate toward talk of tax cuts and education spending and basically repeated his talking points almost as much as Bush did (albeit much more articulately). But he still reinforced the perceptions of him (Global Test?) and didn't outshine Bush as much as was anticipated.

Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
If you come in undecided or for Kerry I think you would see it differently.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Really?………

…….didn't outshine Bush as much as was anticipated.

[/QB]

But he did clearly outshine Bush.

May I ask who you will vote for? If its for the Republicans, I would love to know why?

I think the times Kerry was repeating his talking points was because those were his defensive lines against flip flopping charges which Bush kept using as his answer to everything. I don't think Kerry repeated anything as much as Bush said hard work and full of hatred. If I remember correctly he diverted the attention to education and tax cuts twice and they were hardly substantive discussions of those issues.

And what is so wrong with the global test line anyway? The fact that Bush gave a simpletons reply to that of "We aren't going to let the rest of the world decide what we do" just shows what is fundamentally wrong with his administration. Does anybody think that we will have much staying power in the long run if we make like Fleetwood Mac and go our own way.

I really expected Kerry to do much worse, and thought he did a good job, he stuck on message without sounding like that is all he could do.

Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
But he did clearly outshine Bush.

So did Al Gore, but it didn't seem to matter.

Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
May I ask who you will vote for? If its for the Republicans, I would love to know why?

I will vote Republican because I think it's better than the alternative.

The Democrats won't really change much in Iraq. They will also try to tell everyone that the government can provide great retirement security and cheap quality healthcare for everyone. They can't do either, but they will be happy to take more and more of my money while they postpone the inevitable failure of the entitlement bureaucracy.


One of Kerry's points which I didn't understand is North Korea. If it was bad for us to go to Iraq without an alliance, why is he so adamant about breaking up the alliance negotiating with North Korea, and proceeding with one-on-one talks only?

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
One of Kerry's points which I didn't understand is North Korea. If it was bad for us to go to Iraq without an alliance, why is he so adamant about breaking up the alliance negotiating with North Korea, and proceeding with one-on-one talks only?

Thanks for being candid.

Obviously we will not agree.

Still dont you think negotiating with N.Korea would have been the right strategy from the get-go?

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

One of Kerry's points which I didn't understand is North Korea. If it was bad for us to go to Iraq without an alliance, why is he so adamant about breaking up the alliance negotiating with North Korea, and proceeding with one-on-one talks only?

I have not followed this issue as much as others, but basing it solely on the debate, Bush was the only one saying that negotiating with North Korea directly would break the alliance. Kerry never said it was his goal to do so at the expense of the alliance. Is it generally accepted that one on one negotiations would break any alliance involving China? (genuinely asking)

Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
Still dont you think negotiating with N.Korea would have been the right strategy from the get-go?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Kerry said that he would move for bilateral talks – just North Korea and the U.S.

At the same time, he said that we made a "collosal mistake" in going alone in Iraq ("90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost" "90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost" "90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost" "90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost" "90% of the casualties, 90% of the cost"). He didn't really explain why an alliance is vital for the one situation but counterproductive for the other.

As for negotiating all along – the US negotiated twice before and both times the result was failure. Don't you think that bringing in China adds a lot to the negotiations? Certainly they are more engaged with North Korea on a regular basis and, presumably, can bring more to bear on NK than we could alone.

Not really a response to anybody, but the cynical side of me took Bush's eagerness to say diplomacy will work in North Korea but not necessarily Iran as a tip to his list of countries to invade. :D