The First Presidential Debate (Bush vs Kerry), who won?

lenchmob · Oct 1, 2004, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FossiL

I feel so sorry for some of you Americans.. being brainwashed into believing that Bush is the right chimp *cough* I mean candidate to lead your country.. Kerry won the debate by a landslide.. so ovious hahah with bush's screwed up faces and constant rebutles of inconsistency and beligerent nonsense.. or to make it a little more simpler.. like a broken record.. thank god he can read whatever his pr people wrought for him.. God knows he couldn't or can't think for himself.. for the times that he would just stand there like a dummy and wait for someone to whisper in his little ear piece what the best answer was for any question. Anyone that can look at that debate and think Bush won or that it was a tie.. wow. But luckily im in Canada and my rights and way of life is still mine and my own. Time will only tell wont it? Good luck if Bush gets in.. your going to need it. Oh and just a little side note to all you people that think John Kerry is a flip flopper.. what about Bush's "theres weapons of mass destruction" or was it "Ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussien" or hold on.. maybe it was "Freeing the Iraqi people" wow talk about flip flops.. wake up.

Oh excuse me for voicing my opinion. Your reaction's typical coming from a country (Canada) who's preparing to build a statue to honor those draft dodgers from my nation. It takes more than a debate to lead a country. Bush never flip-flopped about Iraq - he reacted to the intelligence asessment the same way as Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, countless others, and SURPRISE John Kerry did. Only John Kerry is the mother of all flip-floppers he changed his stance on Iraq again. Consistency is not in his vocabulary or actions. Enlighten yourself about John Kerry and read "Unfit For Command", and draw your own conclusions.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 1, 2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Whatever the early verdicts were, one thing was clear: the debate attracted a lot of viewers overseas. In Europe, many people had to stay up past 4 a.m. to see the whole debate, and it was not even shown in some Asian countries until Friday morning.
In France and Germany, which opposed the Iraq war, Kerry’s promise of a multilateral U.S. foreign policy was welcomed.

Germans could not help noticing that Kerry’s stand on the Iraq war and his opposition to unilateral attacks is closer to Berlin’s stance, Gernot Erler, a senior lawmaker with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s Social Democrats, told n-tv television.

In France, results of a pre-debate poll said nearly 90 percent of French favor Kerry, and one analyst said the reasons why are obvious.

“We are in a logic of ‘Anything but Bush,’” Andre Kaspi, an expert on the United States at Paris’ Sorbonne University, told the daily newspaper La Croix.

“There is no doubt that international support for the United States has fallen a lot in the last four years — in France particularly, but this is a global trend and it is also very strong in the Arab world.”

Quote:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ate_world_view

kerry up in flames on this one.....
http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/20...obal-test.html

read up
http://www.georgewbush.com/DebateFacts/debate.aspx

When you go over the debate word for word.... bush takes home the gold

EDIT:

from littlegreenfootballs

Quote:

has a transcript of John Kerry’s bloviating, defensive response to a softball question from one of his most sympathetic interviewers, on Good Morning America:

Quote:

DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

DS: So it was not worth it.

JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.

DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?

JK: No.

DS: But right now it wasn’t [ ... ? ... ]—

JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.

DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .

JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here.

Oh man. It’s almost embarrassing to watch Kerry tie himself in knots, trying to avoid taking a stand while simultaneously taking every stand possible. Tonight’s debate is going to be a hoot.

some flip flops
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymedi...d.aspx?ID=2439

the kerry flip flop Olympics
http://www.georgewbush.com/Olympics/Default.aspx

drakesteakn · Oct 1, 2004, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

People who listened to it on the radio say BUSH won...

People who watched to it on the TV say Kerry won with style points...

bush won with content...
….

Kerry said that it was a common saying "you break it you fix it" wrong it's "you break it you buy it"

Bush looked funny during the debate but so would you when you opponent is spewing

Kerry said they had close the subways from the national convention. Un true they were open….

ETC….

Maybe they will remember that it was Kerry who was against the funds to get them the equipment and life saving armor they need... the same lack that Kerry bashes the president over when he him self was against the 87 billion dollars. So Kerry is a hypocrite by definition.

where is that equipment, i don't see it. hell my dad never saw it. he just got back from iraq. they had to modify their vehilces because they had plastic doors and roofs on their vehicles. thats money went somewhere else. u got no clue Neon

lenchmob · Oct 1, 2004, 12:51 PM

Some more examples of the inconsistent John Kerry:

Author:
Dated: Friday, October 01 2004 @ 07:00 AM PDT
Viewed: 345 times
-- by Jerome Corsi

John Kerry undoubtedly calculated he could have it both ways: For those who wanted to see a war hero, he could tout his decorations; for those who were anti-war, he could point to his role as spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. What John Kerry never calculated fully was that a great number of the men and women who served in Vietnam simply wouldn't buy the story.

To the Swift Boat Veterans For the Truth, John Kerry was a betrayer, plain and simple. First, he betrayed his fellow sailors by leaving Vietnam early, after serving only four short months, while others served full tours, or extended their tours, despite the dangers of combat.

Second, he betrayed the over 2 million men and women who served honorably in Vietnam when he testified to Sen. Fulbright's committee in April 1971 that they were the army of Genghis Khan, committing war crimes on a daily basis, with their atrocities completely approved up and down the chain of command.

John Kerry wanted to be a war hero of a war he said was immoral. The self-contradiction implied in that statement never seemed to bother him. Put simply, he wanted to be an honored member of a select club, even though he insulted the club's members and claimed to the world that the club itself had no legitimate moral authority.

Unfortunately for John Kerry, the most memorable speech of his life may prove to be one of his first, his 1971 testimony before Sen. Fulbright's committee. There he sat in street-theater military fatigues, claiming that the Vietnam War was a mistake, that the United States was a colonial power interfering in a civil war, that we were in Vietnam not to win a victory against godless communism, but to protect a corrupt regime and a puppet dictator in South Vietnam.

John Kerry in that April 1971 testimony asked his most memorable public question: "How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?" Perhaps the ultimate mistake was his. To run for president with his Vietnam "war hero" story as the central pillar of his campaign invited the criticism that his true legacy was that of a Judas – a betrayer, who abandoned his brothers-in-arms on the field of battle and denigrated their honor once he secured the safety of home.

Now we are engaged in another war in a distant part of the world. The president of the United States has claimed we are in Iraq to fight international terrorism and to defend freedom. Where is candidate John Kerry on the question? In the past week, he has given two speeches, one at New York University and another at Temple University, which are remarkable replays of his 1971 anti-war testimony to the Senate.

Kerry tells us the war in Iraq is just another mistake:

The president has said that he "miscalculated" in Iraq and that it was a "catastrophic" success. In fact, the president has made a series of catastrophic decisions... from the beginning... in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction. The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people.

– Sen. Kerry at New York University, Sept. 20, 2004

Iraq, like Vietnam, according to Senator Kerry, is just another civil war:

We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever-widening war-zone.

– Sen. Kerry at NYU, Sept. 20, 2004

The war in Iraq, for Sen. Kerry, is no more a war against terrorism than Vietnam was a war against communism:

The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy – al-Qaida – which killed more than 3,000 people on 9-11 and which still plots our destruction today.

– Sen. Kerry at Temple University, September 24, 2004

Now John Kerry pledges he will fight a "tougher, smarter, more effective war on terror?" But how? By taking the side of the enemy and arguing, as he did in Vietnam, that our enemies are reasonable people who are right to oppose us in this war?

If the past is to be taken as a prologue to the future, the parallels between John Kerry's anti-administration rhetoric on Iraq today – and his war-protest rhetoric of 1971 – must be taken seriously. John Kerry began his campaign at the Democratic National Committee a "war hero," but as was the case with Vietnam, he has now shifted to his second phase, presenting himself as a vocal "anti-war" critic, this time of President Bush's efforts in Iraq.

John Kerry clearly has no commitment to consistency, but he does have an unwavering ambition to win the presidential election in 2004, no matter what he has to say. The parallels to 1971 are all too apparent.

How can we be sure that John Kerry will not end up this time where he ended up last time – betraying our troops by withdrawing from the field of battle at any cost should he ever get the chance to give the order?

This article was published by WorldNetDaily.com.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 1, 2004, 12:55 PM

The Raw Deal: John Kerry's Inaccurate Statements During Last Night's Debate

"John Kerry's at least 16 inaccurate statements during last night's debate widened his credibility gap on the most important issues facing our nation. While President Bush spoke clearly and from the heart about the path toward victory in the War on Terror, Kerry relied on false attacks and demonstrated his continued willingness to play politics with the War on Terror."

http://www.georgewbush.com/KerryMedi...d.aspx?ID=3706

Quote:

Originally Posted by drakesteakn

where is that equipment, i don't see it. hell my dad never saw it. he just got back from iraq. they had to modify their vehilces because they had plastic doors and roofs on their vehicles. thats money went somewhere else. u got no clue Neon

plastic doors and roofs? on what? Don't say jeeps and trucks that normally do so.... that aren't armord vehickles! war or no war....

there are many clases of vehickle like none ,light, medum, hevey..

just becouse they have armored vehickles with sheet steele that are not normally armored. becouse thieve converted vehickjles that are for cevillian use from the iraq millitry to use etc...

drakesteakn · Oct 1, 2004, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

The Raw Deal: John Kerry's Inaccurate Statements During Last Night's Debate

"John Kerry's at least 16 inaccurate statements during last night's debate widened his credibility gap on the most important issues facing our nation. While President Bush spoke clearly and from the heart about the path toward victory in the War on Terror, Kerry relied on false attacks and demonstrated his continued willingness to play politics with the War on Terror."

http://www.georgewbush.com/KerryMedi...d.aspx?ID=3706

plastic doors and roofs? on what?

hummers and personal carriers. vehicles that are supossed to have steel kevlar reinforced doors and floors. thats what. my hummer is the same way. plastic can't stop anything. wait it can stop rain and sand.

never got body armor either.

FossiL · Oct 1, 2004, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

[indent]
kerry up in flames on this one.....
http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/20...obal-test.html

read up
http://www.georgewbush.com/DebateFacts/debate.aspx

When you go over the debate word for word.... bush takes home the gold

some flip flops
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymedi...d.aspx?ID=2439

the kerry flip flop Olympics
http://www.georgewbush.com/Olympics/Default.aspx

Hey Neon Cowboy, I see you've posted quite a bit of news from certain "reputable" websites like (www.georgewbush.com) rofl and thats swell... Its to bad that what your posting is purely bs and furthermore kerry bashing.. Im sure I could post some great stuff about Bush too, but im not going to bother because its a waste of time.. here let me grab the spoon so you can shovel that crap in by the large mouthfulls.. no offense man. Regardless of what papers or news, and websites post it doesnt really matter.. the bottom line is that Bush is a moron.. and it was proven again last night. Anyone with a shred of intelligence knows that Kerry handled himself much better then the arrogant, simple minded "IM A WAAAAR PRESIDENT". Again just another point proven that "some" of you americans take the media and gobble it down like it was the word of God.. "its in the news.. it has to be true".

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 1, 2004, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drakesteakn

hummers and personal carriers. vehicles that are supossed to have steel kevlar reinforced doors and floors. thats what. my hummer is the same way. plastic can't stop anything. wait it can stop rain and sand.

never got body armor either.

AS you said doors and floors not roofs! the roofs are useally thin plastic thats standard and has been a cloth material before. it's been the same since what? WW1? WW2?

Well if thier made of plastic then thats news to me... far as i under stand it's a light aurmored vehickle.... a guy with a machine gun or RPG can take out with most such vehickles.

Cevillian hum are nothing compaired millitary hum V's. lest thats what i have herd I've herd from verterns strories that for one example the engine took rounds through the engine block and still got them miles to safty...

A HUM V IS NOT A SAFE VEHIKLE WHEN IT COME TO BULLETS!! PERSIOD IT's not a hevey armor vehickle...

To stop a AK47 or high power rifle bullets you really need at lest 3" of solid steel.... I've persanally shot ak47's, sks's, m16's etc and the bullet traps of 2 1/2's steel some of the rounds pass through like it was made of butter.

I dont know about kevlar or anything like that though Suv and personal carriers are light armor to no armor vehikles by nature

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 1, 2004, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FossiL

Hey Neon Cowboy, I see you've posted quite a bit of news from certain "reputable" websites like (www.georgewbush.com) rofl and thats swell... Its to bad that what your posting is purely bs and furthermore kerry bashing.. Im sure I could post some great stuff about Bush too, but im not going to bother because its a waste of time.. here let me grab the spoon so you can shovel that crap in by the large mouthfulls.. no offense man. Regardless of what papers or news, and websites post it doesnt really matter.. the bottom line is that kerry is a moron.. and it was proven again last night. Anyone with a shred of intelligence knows that Kerry handled himself much better then the arrogant, simple minded "IM A WAAAAR PRESIDENT". Again just another point proven that "some" of you americans take the media and gobble it down like it was the word of God.. "its in the news.. it has to be true".

Well those list thier 3rd party sites sousres and thier not the only sites saying that. It's simpler to get to said places becouse it make the information easy to link to it's all in one place.

So if the facts don't favor kerry, then I'm bashing?

drakesteakn · Oct 1, 2004, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

Well if thier made of plastic then thats news to me... far as i under stand it's a light aurmored vehickle.... a guy with a machine gun or RPG can take out with most vehickles.

Cevillian hum are nothing compaired millitary hum V's. lest thats what i have herd I've herd from verterns strories that for one example the engine took rounds through the engine block and still got them miles to safty...

A HUM V IS NOT A SAFE VEHIKLE WHEN IT COME TO BULLETS!! PERSIOD IT's not a hevey armor vehickle...

To stop a AK47 or high power rifle bullets you really need at lest 3" of solid steel.... I've persanally shot ak47's, sks's, m16's etc and the bullet traps of 2 1/2's steel some of the rounds pass through like it was made of butter.

I dont know about kevlar or anything like that though Suv and personal carries are light armor to no armor vehikles by nature

well thats what the soldiers drive. not tanks. so give us the money Bush u bastard!!!

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 1, 2004, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drakesteakn

well thats what the soldiers drive. not tanks. so give us the money Bush u bastard!!!

I sorry but even with added armor they will still be bullet traps, and setting ducks /death traps with face with a RPG or wire guided missle.....

with the added arm they will also be hevyier and slower. mean slower an easier target and slower take longer to get were they are needed...

GutterPunk · Oct 1, 2004, 01:18 PM

The Debate totally sucked arse... what'd it prove? nothing... just that they can bend the facts and make them lean for them

and i like kerry's response when he said that the bush admin actually cut funding on nuclear proliferation or w/e its called but in actuallity, it was only 1 person that wanted to in which through time actually increased funding

drakesteakn · Oct 1, 2004, 01:20 PM

sa ur saying its alright to send soldiers to death neon? thats what u just said.

digitalwanderer · Oct 1, 2004, 01:23 PM

@ Neon!!!

Son you are giving an old man an embarressing case of the giggles!!!

digitalwanderer · Oct 1, 2004, 01:24 PM

Drakesteakn- Thank you for keeping it real, and thank you for serving our country. Please stay safe and best of luck.

drakesteakn · Oct 1, 2004, 01:26 PM

oh and thats Najaf and AR Ramadi these soldiers where fighting. the heaviest fighting in Iraq. no in the middle of no where.

and thanx for the support. we need it

GutterPunk · Oct 1, 2004, 01:29 PM

Cant only thank Drake, Thank his father for 1 year of service in IRAQ. Thank all soldiers

and kerry's idea of being able to start withdrawing troops within 6 months... that could be done no matter what president, it all depends on the progress made

drakesteakn · Oct 1, 2004, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GutterPunk

Cant only thank Drake, Thank his father for 1 year of service in IRAQ. Thank all soldiers

and kerry's idea of being able to start withdrawing troops within 6 months... that could be done no matter what president, it all depends on the progress made

the thing is we need to work together with other countries to make it possible to save Iraq. not just america. its a big concern for me to go to Iraq and not get any help. we need everyone to help. thats the key.

lenchmob · Oct 1, 2004, 01:33 PM

drakesteakn

In regards to the problems of armor and vehicles has anybody brought this up the chain? Has anybody talked to the IG about this? Has anybody talked with the local S-4 and did some scrounging/trading for materials to reinforce the vehicles? Has anybody tried to "overcome, adapt and improvise in the intrem?

digitalwanderer · Oct 1, 2004, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drakesteakn

the thing is we need to work together with other countries to make it possible to save Iraq. not just america. its a big concern for me to go to Iraq and not get any help. we need everyone to help. thats the key.

I was just arguing that point on another forum with someone and would love to get your opinion on something...if'n it doesn't offend ya.

Are you (the US soldiers there) viewed as liberators or occupiers? I'm almost convinced that with all the blunders the Bush administration made in dealing with Iraq that the Iraqi people simply don't trust Americans anymore and that an international coalition will have to be brought in just to show that we (the US) don't plan to occupy Iraq.

You agree, disagree, or just care to tell me your views on it?