Anyone tuning in? Seeing as how i thought this was over....maybe i should :P
Printable View
Anyone tuning in? Seeing as how i thought this was over....maybe i should :P
anyone seen this? Its mostly pg13
www.jibjab.com
click on this land
> Anyone tuning in?
Yup, although the debate format is really weak.
> click on this land
Ever hear of a flash called All Your Base? Sorry man, when my mom sends me a link months before you do, you're out of the loop :)
my buddy jus showed me : (
CSPAN's breakin' the rules by showing them in a split screen.
Good.
We need a presidential election here at the CBoard! I nominate myself as candidate for the Something Party! Who's gunna run against me?
so's foxQuote:
Originally Posted by Govtcheez
I will, for the Birthday Party. Now I was born on a different forum, so I can't really be president, but I believe we should be using more duct tape. My opponent would have you believe otherwise.
when is the debate?
right now
> so's fox
Do yourself a favor. Watch it on CSPAN without Fox's BS addons. Decide for yourself.
For their election, or CBoards? Ours is now too:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian
-sean-macroy is a FOREIGNER!!!! KILL HIM!
-I speak the good English.
You like the duct tape idea... you know you do...
i nominate myself as the third party canidate, the I am sillyI am sillyI am sillyI am sillyI am sillyI am sillyI am silly party.
ok nm, that sounds gay, we are the Pajama Party, cause pajama's kick ass!!
i support duct tape, and big butts.
Vote for me!!!
edit: since this is the "third" party, anyone can feel free to add to our agenda!, as long as it's cool with me that is... i am the founder/nominee after all..
edit: i am also nominating myself the Costume Party candidate!
edit: and hereby RULER of this forum! debate over.
i ran for president, i lost
BTW third party canadites will never win big* elections.
*by big i mean presidental
Unless our government changes from a democracy
through hostile takeover.
back on topic:
that debate was kinda lame, but out of the two, kerry whooped ARSE.
i think Kerry could have done much better, actually... he stepped over himself to much, no big slams, but Bush atomic elbow dropped him...
my opinion, though i missed the first half is Bush won.
i agree though the debate was lame... the questions were a tragedy!!!!!!
Jar Jar,
read the edits in my post, the debates over i called it... i won by a land slide... pay attention.
>>Do yourself a favor. Watch it on CSPAN without Fox's BS addons. Decide for yourself.<<
does anyone else see anything wrong with this statement? :rolleyes: I saw it on FOX, and there were no "BS addons" throughout the debate.
RoD, were we watching the same thing?!? In my opinion Bush came out much better, and he was the one doing the "kicking"; Kerry was always indirectly on the defense and frankly didn't handle it too well. WERE IS THIS GUY'S PASSION? you could see that Bush got fired up as some of Kerrie's responses; Kerry on the other hand acted as a stuffed, emotionless puppet.
The debate was good; better than I expected - too bad I wont get a chance to see the other ones :(
bush got fired up because he knew he was wrong. Bush used the same answer for every question, and continued to attack kerry as a flip-flopper, when kerry adressed that claim and quite well.
Bush never should have gone into iraq. As bush does, kerry says yes, he was a threat. Good idea, BAD execution. My only gripe with kerry is his anti-atv attitude, but ill take him over bush anyday.
>>...because he knew he was wrong<<
good explanation RoD. Good job. :rolleyes:
>>Bush used the same answer for every question<<
Not exactly, but so did Kerry - and so did everyother presidential candidate in the past - that is what its all about.
>>when kerry adressed that claim and quite well.<<
Remind me RoD, how did he do that again? you can't "address a claim quite well" unless that claim is not true.
>>As bush does, kerry says yes, he was a threat.<<
this makes no sense, but I know you quite well so I will translate for the community, correct me if I'm wrong: "Kerry agrees with Bush that Saddam was a threat".
>>My only gripe with kerry is his anti-atv attitude, but ill take him over bush anyday.<<
now you're just being stupid.
thnx for the clarity axon. The war shouldnt be the only issue in the campaign, and while tonights debate wont be the last, everyone is focusing SO much attention on the war end of it theres other issues not even being touched.
Abortion, weapons, ATV's (and the like), welfar, SS, etc
thats for the next debate this one was on the easy issues, to break Kerry in. he has a lot to work on in order to debate Bush on the other issues, thats my take on the singular issue of "National Security" anyway.
>>everyone is focusing SO much attention on the war end of it theres other issues not even being touched<<
each debate has its own topic. War and national security is very important, but I still think other issues matter much more to the American public.
I feel both presented their points in the best way they knew how.
It is not the question of who could exploit the others weeknesses the best, but
what they will do in office for next 4 years. I did not hear either one say anything
that will make me chose one of the other. Granted I only saw the tail end of the debate. I feel bush has to go in with one strike against him. I'm a passafist, and in the year 2004 I feel we have the capability of evolving beyond war as an answer (provoked or not) so bush will have to do a lot better to get my vote. One thing is for sure, the political media will be trashing both for this debate.
> RoD, were we watching the same thing?!?
I could ask you the exact same thing.
> Kerry was always indirectly on the defense and frankly didn't handle it too well.
Oh? Is that why Bush kept going for his 30 seconds without asking Lehrer if it was ok?
> Remind me RoD, how did he do that again?
He explained the crap that's been described as "flip-flopping"very well. If a situation changes, you are allowed to change your opinion on it. It's not as if you should stick with something you know is wrong after new evidence comes to light. Hell, Bush flipflops just as much as anyone, but you don't see that being harped on by the left.
> you could see that Bush got fired up as some of Kerrie's responses; Kerry on the other hand acted as a stuffed, emotionless puppet.
It was a pretty sterile debate. Bush got fired up and frustrated because he couldn't answer the questions without a 15 second pause in the middle or going over his time. Besides, I'd rather have a president that calmly regarded the situation and acted, not one that just jumped into action before thinking about it.
> now you're just being stupid.
Now we agree. Anti-atv stance? WTF?
Kerry is against activities that many feel damage the eco-system. Such as ATV's (All terrain vehicle), off roaders (SUV's, Trucks), Camping outside designated area, etc. Some of that is valid, but im strongly against the banning of ATV's.
>Oh? Is that why Bush kept going for his 30 seconds without asking Lehrer if it was ok?
and Kerry didnt? they both did, and most of the times i saw, Bush did it in response to Kerry's doing it, or vice-versa... anyway BLAME IT ON Lehrer he is totally weak as a moderator.
>He explained the crap that's been described as "flip-flopping"very well...
in my opinion he did not, though he did make a sound point on it, he trampled it on the next question. his execution of is points ruined most of them.
>Bush got fired up and frustrated because he couldn't answer the questions without a 15 second pause in the middle or going over his time.
huh? the questions were freaking retarded, and he got "fired up" because of Kerry.
and the questions requiring the same answer from him, being asked a dozen different ways...
i mean it appeared to me the questions were slated for Kerry, and not very well rounded... i mean being its his first debate you have to give him some breaks, but not in that manner.
this whole discussion now is retarded anyway because the debate was absolutely horrible.
> Bush did it in response to Kerry's doing it,
What? I don't recall seeing Kerry using the 30 seconds at the end without permission once.
> the questions were freaking retarded
Examples?
> i mean it appeared to me the questions were slated for Kerry
haha, ok. I'd like to see some of them.
i didnt see bush do "that" exact thing either... nit picky... reguardless Lehrer did not enforce the debate format AT ALL. Any transgressions are his fault. PERIOD.
edit: btw: thats not what you asked in the first place
>Examples?
yes let me make some verbatum quotes out of memory real quick... no wait how bout you pick one...
edit: actually how bout the last one on "personal opinions" of each other...
>haha, ok. I'd like to see some of them.
uh, did you watch the debate, the questions gave Kerry FAR more flexibility in response...
why are we even bothering with this? this arguement is assinine opinionated bullI am sillyI am sillyI am sillyI am silly anyway... so i request dropping it before it gets stupid.
To me it seemed Kerry was the calm debater who actually answered the questions as well as the attacks from Bush, while Bush seemingly seemed flustered and confused and answered every question with the same two points over and over and over again. Kerry explained the "Wrong war, wrong time" complaint well in my opinion as well as the flip-flopping argument, yet Bush just kept turning a blind ear to this and instead of coming up with new arguments just kept repeating the old ones.
I do agree that this debate was geared a little to much for Kerry though, 90% of it was on the war in Iraq which is fairly to easy to debate Bush screwed up on. I'll wait for the other debates on more domestic affairs to see if this trend seems to continue.
> 90% of it was on the war in Iraq
The debate was on foreign policy. Bush's only foreign policies are attacking terrorists and invading Iraq. What else should it have been on?
> btw: thats not what you asked in the first place
Yes it was.
> no wait how bout you pick one...
Burden of proof is on you. You made the claim.
> actually how bout the last one on "personal opinions" of each other...
Asking the personal opinions of each other is slated towards Kerry? How so?
> uh, did you watch the debate, the questions gave Kerry FAR more flexibility in response...
It's not his fault Bush has painted himself into a corner.
I didn't mean to say that it was wrong, just that the fact that since this debate was on foreign policy it would obviously be in Kerry's favor. Gotta wait for the more domestic debates to see if my gut feeling over the two candidates debating skills continue.
> Yes it was.
maybe in your head... thats not what the words said to me. my apologies for not being fluent in Govtcheez.
>Burden of proof is on you. You made the claim.
i made an example, the last one on their opinions of each other, besides there is no burden of proof anyways, i made a self-proving statement of opinion, expecting your watching of the debate to see it through, there is no need for sighting particulars, being all that i saw were in question, and that your seeing the debate and the questions solves that problem... thanks for trying to make this something more serious than it need to be.
>Asking the personal opinions of each other is slated towards Kerry? How so?
first that was a response to the charge of the questions being retarded... second does any one question sum up the debate?
>It's not his fault Bush has painted himself into a corner.
now thats just asinine
people get way to fired up over politics...
> thanks for trying to make this something more serious than it need to be.
Or, you could just mention the part where Kerry steamrolled Lehrer so he could get a quick 30 second rebuttal in.
> second does any one question sum up the debate?
Third that doesn't answer the question at all. If the debate was so obviously slanted towards Kerry, surely you could pick out one question that was unfair.
> people get way to fired up over politics.
You saying this is pretty funny, Admiral Allcaps.
>Or, you could just mention the part where Kerry steamrolled Lehrer so he could get a quick 30 second rebuttal in.
then i could just let you do it... and answer a different question?!?!?
i think the topic on this one was, the questions being retarded, not the both of them steamrolling Lehrer for time to rebut.
>
Third that doesn't answer the question at all. If the debate was so obviously slanted towards Kerry, surely you could pick out one question that was unfair.
<
your confusing up all the questions?!??? anyway... your being... pardon, i dont mean it as an insult or anything... but your being obtuse.
>You saying this is pretty funny, Admiral Allcaps.
Aye Cap'n!!
Edit: furthermore the need for examples is unnecessary, being that it would "muddle" my point and they should be self exemplary. in any of these cases it is in my opinion unnecessary and assinine! to even ask for them... especially being they were broad statements not requireing "single" examples, the entirety as a WHOLE is in question... seriously... what the hell.
any online links for the complete video stream????
Did any one watch the after debate analysis (on fox i believe) where there were two guys (pro bush, pro kerry). And the pro bush asked the pro kerry about kerrys "flip floppy" stance on the war.
And they got into a funny as heck immature squable that was this cliche:
"Will you just let me answer?" -pro kerry
"ok, answer" -pro bush
"ok, I will, will you let me" - k
"ok, go " - b
"I will, just let me answer" -k
"ok, answer" - b
"are you gonna let me finish?" -k
I swear to god that is the exact transcript of the question....
Click for the transcript of the debate.
My favorite exchange....
Kerry:...there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.
BUSH: Well, actually, he forgot Poland.
And should a president really refer to the president of Russia as "Vladamuhr"?
vasanth I agree.
if someone has a link to the full debate on video for free please post
i found it on cnn, but that is a pay service.
To clarify this exchange,Quote:
Originally Posted by exluddite
in the very previous question to this one, bush was asked something along the lines of we had gone into the war alone. And bush said we werent alone, we had britin and... poland. Giving two sides of the extreme (lets face it, poland isn't know for its military power...) but he mentioned them to say were didnt go in alone unsupported.
Then in this following question kerry said we only went in with 3 supporters, and bush was all like
"Well actually you forgot poland". Which was very funny cause it made kerry look like an ass as bush had JUST said it.
Like CNN doesn't have BS addons.
Typical CNN format: Let's talk to <so_and_so_expert) who doesn't know one damn thing more about what we are talking about than you people at home do.
Half the time when the 'experts' get done talking I'm like....did they say anything we didn't already know.
I remember when they covered some plane crash in Florida. The expert was so intelligent that when asked what he thought happened.....he said something went terribly wrong. No kidding? And I thought the pilot just nosed her into the everglades for the heck of it. Very enlightening.
My favorite line.
Bush: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.
(But you really have to see the face he made at Kerry to get the full entertainment value.)
Bush looked like a fish out of water, kerry was calm. I;m registering to vote and going Kerry. There would have to be amazing outlash of events in future debates to change my mind.
In Australia voting is compulsory you get fined if you don't (even if you ar out of the country).
The major reason you are disqualified from voting is if you are still serving time for committing a crime.
As the two Australians in US custody in Camp X-Ray have not been convicted in the three years they have been held they get to VOTE!
Wonder if they know who is running?
> In Australia voting is compulsory you get fined if you don't
I'm glad it's not here. Enough uninformed people vote as it is.
> Like CNN doesn't have BS addons.
I didn't watch it on CNN. I watched it on CSPAN.
one thing i didnt understand, bush kept saying alot of people in iraq are registered to vote....does that mean other countries are getting a say in who wins? if so wtf is that about? Did he just mean that they are getting to a democracy?
I'm listening to this debate for the first time right now (had no TV on Thurs). I'm only 45 min in, and I'm extremely tired of hearing "If I were to say this is the wrong war at the wrong place."
Bush is just repeating himself - and attacking Bush as he does it.
it will not make a difference if either bush or kerry wins.
damage has been done to iraq. and kerry said he would deal with terrorism "more effectively"....
Well Bush didn't do as bad as people say, they just saw his facial expression and his slocuhed body on the podium and thought kerry did well. I don't really think kerry blew bush out of the water, i just think people thought bush did poorly, so kerry must have one.
one what?
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by RoD
won i mean
I agree Kerry didn't blow bush away, but he did stop Bush. Recently Bush had been starting to pull away, and one NPR analyst pointed out that Kerry may have managed to throw some water back into the mixture and keep things fluid.
It will be interesting to see how the town hall debate goes. Plus the domestic one - that's the one that I really care about...
hopefully they'll have a moderator with a backbone to say "mr president, STFU"
god damn you people are so one sided... just for once dig the bullI am sillyI am sillyI am sillyI am silly out of your eyes...
I've been doing that for four years now. Hell, I put on my glasses with windshield wipers whenever I see Shrub on the TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by no-one
>>I'm glad it's not here. Enough uninformed people vote as it is.
One TV comedy show is showing footage of people saying stupid things and reminding us they HAVE to vote.
>>It will be interesting to see how the town hall debate goes.
Thats the one where the candidates already have the 'script'? (the questions to be asked by 'average' voters)
We are voting next Saturday. I think Howard was worried GWB would loose and so chose to go first. (the PM picks the date of the elections in Australia)
> the PM picks the date of the elections in Australia
Seems like that could be abused. Is it ever?
> the PM picks the date of the elections in Australia
> Seems like that could be abused. Is it ever?
only by politicians.
this election was timed to miss the two football grand finals, miss the olympics, before the US elections, before the predicted interest rate rise, take advantage of the oppositions new leader, after the $600 bonus per child was received and with an eye on the polls.
If your interested try a google for Tampa and 'children overboard'.
I think bush will do good in the next debates, because he has the ability to destroy kerry, so many missed oppurtunities at the foreign policy debate. he just needs to be himself and think a little more. i am sure his advisors have told him this.
Mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by cpp!n
true enough
Just a reminder, the only VP debate is tonight.
suppose to be the best since the VP forum started. Also a deciding factor in the polls. Must watchQuote:
Just a reminder, the only VP debate is tonight.
Polls for the results of last night:Quote:
CBS news
Dick Cheney ...19.18%
John Edwards ...79.16%
Neither man. It was a draw ...1.65%
AOL
John Edwards ...51%
Dick Cheney ...49%
CNN
Dick Cheney ...18%
John Edwards ...78%
Evenly matched ...4%
Fox
Cheney ...(46%)
Edwards ...(53%)
MSNBC
Dick Cheney ......32%
John Edwards .....68%
Yahoo
Cheney ...33%
Edwards ...63%
Tie ...6%
Wall Street Journal
Dick Cheney ...360 votes (5%)
John Edwards ...6858 votes (94%)
It was a tie ...102 votes (1%)
Time.com
Cheney ...7.9%
Edwards ...89.8%
Draw ...2.3%
As one reporter stated, the poll results from last night are nearly as important as what they'll be today or tomorrow.
That's true; those are web polls, but they were all that was available when I looked this morning.
I didn't actually get a chance to watch this one, but the impression I'm getting from reading different news stories is that it was a lot more even the the presidential one. That sound about right?
Don't know myself, haven't had a chance to watch either thanks to school. But I'm getting the same impression of eveness.
I watched it and even though I tend to disagree with a number of things Cheney said, I'd definately call the debate even. Cheney was fairly calm and factual while Edwards seemed pretty worked up but unfortunately kept tripping over his words and making mistakes. Didn't learn much new though, just a lot of the same arguments as last week with a couple extra questions on healthcare. The moderator was just as bad as last week, messed up a lot on who's turn it was to answer questions and consistantly let them (especially Edwards) use too much time or cheat and continue to discuss previous questions even though a new question had been asked.
I saw last nights. I would have to say that Edwards won, but it was much more even than the presidential one (it helped that both people were able to articulate English words). At any rate, it seemed that for the first half or so, Cheney was just making personal slams on Edwards (which did get Edwards a bit worked up by the end).
I watched some of the VP debate, and it seemed like they did a whole lot better than Bush and Kerry, although I'm not sure why...
Anyways, there was only one thing I heard that really affected me at all--the part where Edwards said something about Cheney voting to get rid of certain weapons and something about the company that he worked for...All Cheney had to respond with was a repeat of what he said about Kerry and Edwards always voting wrong or something.
I thought that the polls stated that some stations liked dick. Very few but some.
I feel the dick and bush campaign has been based on slander and not what they will do for the country, other than attack anyone that they feel do not conform.
personally this debate did show that dick and bush have something beyond the need for "hooked on phonics" or speach 101. I'm not the one to down anyone, but I expect more from the president. on another topic, has anyone seen the propoganda farenheit 9.11. it was just released on video, and wow that makes up for the right wing slander against kerry and edwards. To make a long point short. Neither side has proved why they should have my vote. *steps off soap box* sorry to waist your time with my ramblings.
p.s. why do you kill people to show killing people is bad?
The basic flaw I find with both parties is that neither side is willing to articulate an actual ideological motive for their actions. They are willing to state "what" they will do (or rather, what they think the electorate wants them to say they'll do), but they always focus on concrete examples, and never an underlying motivation for their actions. Granted, you can get a sense of one by watching them (and it is one that I very strongly oppose on both Democrat and Republican sides), but you really have to be looking for it.
Something people here may be interested in reading, a study from the Cato Institute about voter ignorance: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-525es.html
that is a pretty good article.
but how can a voter really know the truth behind the politicians convictions.
Or as they say be educated enough or be able to make a difference.
if you have educated yourself as much as possible with the issues at hand, how do you know that the presenter of that is not providing you just fallacy to get your vote.
like you said, tell them what they want to get into office, then conduct yourself in the opposite.
I'm not sure whether I agree with that or not. What I have seen is candidates saying what they plan to do, but not how they plan to do it. For example, I heard Kerry repeat several times how he plans to gain more allies for the war and such; all of which is quite a good idea, but I haven't heard much of a plan on how to do it. Although to be fair, I haven't been following everything as closely as I should (maybe when I'm 18 I'll start listening a bit more)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zach L.
At first I was watching.. becoming agravated with both because they seemed to be going no where.. then it happened. I have been undecided through this whole thing but then.. (in my mind) Cheny owned Edwards..
Cheny stayed calm and talked like he knew what his job was and what he needed to do, while Edwards hardly ever talked about HIMSELF. It was always "Kerry wants to" or "WE will". Even when he was asked to comment on himself not talking about Kerry, thats all he did.
The thing that finally got me was the realization that if Kerry got office, and something happened to him, Edwards would be running the nation.. and that made me pee myself.
JaWiB: What I was trying to say (and not saying it well), is that neither bunch of politicos is actually stating what the philosophy of their foreign (or for that matter, domestic, etc) policy will be. Details aside, I'd like to have some idea of what their ideology is in regard to these topics, not just examples of what they would do in specific cases (abstraction of the issue to a degree). One significant benefit of that is that it makes it easier how they will react to unknowns.
xviddivxoggmp3: It is certainly impossible for the average voter to be completely versed on the political information, but there should at least be a greater level of fundamental understanding. While politicians will lie to get into office, it will be easier for a more informed voter to see through it, and for the voter who has thought more abstractly (as I mentioned above), it will be easier to recognize contradictions, and things which are simply wrong in the candidates' platforms. Again, not fool proof, but much better. Did you see the table of data from NES for the 2000 election in that article? Certainly, the particular questions are not very deep (and some are a bit fluff which the article addresses too), but it is scary to think about how fundamentally lacking the electorate was (regardless of whether you agree with the outcome or not).
Cheers
can you write in names for pres elections?
if so I'm voting for super man
ready for the debate tonight?
Debates tomorrow night.
its as much people dont care as they arn't informed, i mean probably half the people vote the way they do because of pressure from some outer sphere of influence, parents, friends, etc...(i.e. non directly from the candidates platforms, etc... ), the world is far from full of free thinking individuals.
yeah i can hear you all now... and you think your a free thinking individual? do you?