Home | Community | Message Board

Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here
    #3202365 - 10/01/04 12:12 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

This thread was created so y'all can comment on my analysis of the first Presidential "debate". The beginning of my analysis can be found in the locked thread titled "Bush loses on presentation, wins on issues" found here: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...sb=5&o=&fpart=1

I'll continue the analysis later. Time to get some sleep.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3202389 - 10/01/04 12:17 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

You didn't see the debates.....

The fact of the matter....GW BUSH=Kerry's bitch,at least tonight.

You highlighted ALL the points Bush made, and about a 1/3 of the points Kerry made, and you commented on them with an obvious bias, but he, whatever....its cool....


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3202402 - 10/01/04 12:20 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

You miss a lot by just reading this debate.

Bush looked bad.

He was slouching.

He sounded defensive.

He even lost his cool once.

Bush stumbled over Hussein/Bin Laden's name.

He mispronounced nuclear proliferation... he gave up on nucl... nuc... and just settled on prolif...eration.

Bush was the only guy to ever go over His camp's pre-determined time limits.

Bush asked to rebute Kerry... then just drew a blank... the moderator had to prompt Bush into saying something. Lehr had to remind Bush of why he asked to rebute! It was hillarious.

I don't think these things will be as evident in transcripts.

Bush looked like Nixon in 1960. Kerry looked like Kennedy. Bush made that long winded, horse-faced liberal look like Kennedy! Well... Kennedy and Kerry are both Ma. liberals.

This was not the GWB that we saw in the 2000 debates against Gore or the GWB from the Texas debates, against Anne Richards. Bush looked about as bad as he could... and I'm being nice.

To be fair, Kerry has a lot of ground to cover... but I think he may have done it in 90 minutes.

Sleep well.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Rose]
    #3202470 - 10/01/04 12:37 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Skikid16 and Cervantes:

Which part of
Quote:

I readily admit that without being able to watch gestures, expressions, tone of voice, stammers and other body language cues I am at a disadvantage when it comes to judging the showmanship part of the spectacle, but after reading through it twice I can't see a single question where Kerry "stomped" Bush. Bush won on the issues. Whether or not that will help him in the polls is another thing, of course.



did I fail to make sufficiently clear to you?

Note that I am not the only one who has come to this conclusion. Cornking is another who picked up on many of the same points I did. Clearly not everyone is fooled by debating tactics. We all know Kerry is a good debater, and we all know Bush is a lousy public speaker.

I am not trying to claim that Bush won on the presentation -- see the title of my thread.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3202479 - 10/01/04 12:40 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I'm just trying to help you get an idea of what you missed. :smirk:

Don't worry, keep reading the debate.

And keep your poker face on. Bush looks better when you keep your poker face on.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3202484 - 10/01/04 12:41 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

see it first chance you get, pinky. this debate wasn't watched for substance.

small correction: when Lehrer asked Bush whether he thought the country had a greater chance of being hit under Kerry, Bush responded with "I don't believe it's gonna happen."
I think it was plain to anyone watching the debate (based on his tone and his following comments), that he wasn't referring to another attack. He was stating that he didn't believe Kerry would be elected, therefore he didn't have to answer the question.
Same kinda answers he used to give when that pesky Helen Thomas would ask 'what if' questions on Iraq's alleged WMDs...

I'm assuming you added the 'another 9-11 type attack' parenthesis yourself, since no news organization would have screwed up his meaning that badly.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Gijith]
    #3202506 - 10/01/04 12:47 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Aha. Yes, I did add the part in parenthesis myself but forgot to make them black. I also meant to add a question mark to it, but it gets complex putting in all the color tags. Thanks for the headsup. I'll change it.

Again, I'm working from the first transcript I found. There are probably others out there with slight changes in wording. I've noticed this in the past with live speeches -- slight variations in transcripts.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3202630 - 10/01/04 01:19 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

i personally thought--and i watched the debate--that not only was kerry a better debater/presenter but that he had more content in speaking about the issues.

seemed to me like bush kept crawling back to the same old arguments: we cant have a president who flip flops like kerry, who sends mixed messages, it's hard waaaaaaaa

kerry called him out and he couldnt say anything. thats what i got out of it. i stopped watching for awhile because i was getting bored. bush never said anything different he might as well have said one paragraph and gotten it over with.


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Post deleted by Anno [Re: Phred]
    #3202657 - 10/01/04 01:26 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3202714 - 10/01/04 01:48 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I couldn't have imagined a worse presentation, and I would cut my own penis off before I voted for John Forbes Kerry. He could have came on strong tonight and knocked Kerry out of the race.

Kerry would have a much better argument if he voted against the war. His best arguments are against a war that he voted for. His style will not win out over his substance.

George Bush looked like a chimp. An angry stupid studdering discombobulated chimp at that.

I watched 90 minutes of that crap. I can't imagine the public at large tuned into that after the first 30 or so minutes. I would rather have a root canal than watch that again.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3202763 - 10/01/04 02:07 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

just wait mang, we got 2 more :smile: something tell me they are gonna really try to get bush into shape though ....oh and why not just vote libertarian?? if u dont liek either man


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3202804 - 10/01/04 02:27 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Kerry's issues were pretty fucking sound.

How come we sent the Afghan mullas up to kill Bin Laden in Tora Bora? They didn't want him dead! The US Army was right there... chomping at the bit to take Bin Laden out! Why didn't they get that chance?

The war in Iraq was started in the wrong way.

It's Bin Laden! Not Sadam!

North Korea now has nukes? Why, if Bush thinks nukes are the scariest threat to America, did he let North Korea get Nukes? Oh yeah... Iraq.

It is better to change your mind than to be wrong and stubborn.

Flip flopping is not as big a mistake as an unjust war.

Kerry made some HUGE points.

All that I remember bush saying was Kerry flip flops!

Not tonight he didn't.

Kerry answered more of the questions he was actually asked than Bush.

Kerry followed Bush's rules better than Bush.

Best presidential debate performance I've seen in years.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemr crisper
.

Registered: 07/24/00
Posts: 928
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3203035 - 10/01/04 04:52 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

pinky, why do you think your analysis of something you didn't even watch is important enough to lock and stick at the top of the messageboard?
i have a lot of time for your views and thoughts but
this forum is not your personal soapbox.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3203056 - 10/01/04 05:24 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Bush gets a D- for his performance in the debate
you get an F for your analysis of the debate


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequestion_for_joo
i'm left. youall can bite me
Registered: 04/30/03
Posts: 1,591
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3203197 - 10/01/04 07:29 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

your analysis of the debate was rightwingbiased.
you stickieng it, then making a seperate thread to have people analyze your analysis including a third-person self reference demonstrates you have a big ego and are insecure.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3203214 - 10/01/04 07:40 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I hate to admit it but Kerry beat the shit out of Bush. Bush kept repeating the same ol shit over and over.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStein
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/02/03
Posts: 35,129
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Innvertigo]
    #3203221 - 10/01/04 07:52 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I heard reference to Bush being jet lagged and exhuasted from visiting the hurricane victims in Florida on the same day. Granted, thats no excuse, the party should have planned the hurricane victim visit before or after and not on the day of debate.

But yeah, kerry did come out looking the better of the two. But we all know Bush isn't the greatest public speaker, he even makes fun of himself about it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Stein]
    #3203227 - 10/01/04 07:56 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I don't think it will matter but Kerry did win that debate, not so much on the issues but rather the delivery.


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLoki
Ferret Farmer
Trans-male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/04
Posts: 18,296
Loc: Zone ate
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: mr crisper]
    #3203241 - 10/01/04 08:06 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

mr crisper said:
pinky, why do you think your analysis of something you didn't even watch is important enough to lock and stick at the top of the messageboard?
i have a lot of time for your views and thoughts but
this forum is not your personal soapbox.




I agree. Why did you close it and make another? What was wrong with stickying it, and leaving it open for critique ?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Stein]
    #3203245 - 10/01/04 08:07 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I saw the interview on the Factor, and Bush looked solid. Then I saw Kerry twisting in the wind with Diane Sawyer. I figured this baby was over. John Kerry looked the best that he did in the entire campaign, and Bush failed to deliver a decent presentation on his strongest issue.

I still go with Bush on the issues. Kerry argues against Iraq, but he voted for it. If he really thinks that it was going to stretch us to thin or divert resources from the real target then he had no reason to vote for the war. He acts as though his vote isn't important but his public stance is. The reality is just the opposite. We couldn't have gone to war without Congress authorizing the use of force, and John Kerry gave that authorization.

I do like Kerry's message that he will win the war on Iraq. I have a hard time believing him, but I like the fact that our candidates are showing a united front in the resolve to win the war. I am still mad that the Kerry camp took shots at Allawi. Too bad the chimp couldn't do a better job of pointing that out.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: mr crisper]
    #3203275 - 10/01/04 08:22 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

mr crisper said:
pinky, why do you think your analysis of something you didn't even watch is important enough to lock and stick at the top of the messageboard?
i have a lot of time for your views and thoughts but
this forum is not your personal soapbox.




I'll second that.

And pinky, I was gonna wait till you posted whatever additional analysis you were planning before I spoke my piece. But I'll do it now.

  I think the problem with your analysis - aside form the fact that it's based on a crappy transcript alone - is that you're approaching this as if it was two separate interviews or speeches. One with Bush. One with Kerry. And you've done your analysis as a opinionated point by point dissection of the issues. But what happened last night was not a pair of interviews, nor was it a pair of campaign speeches (despite what people here had predicted). The purpose of an interview or a speech is to give the candidates a chance to declare their positions and make supporting arguments. And while there was some of this last night, it was not the purpose of the debate.

  The purpose of last night was to have the two candidates square off in a battle, using their respective arguements against one another. In this sense, the postions themselves amount to little more than ammunition. It's the way a candidate uses that ammunition, the skill with which he attacks, that will determine which man is left standing. And Kerry shot Bush down cold last night.

  For someone like me, who thinks neither candidate has a decent plan for America, they were essentially firing blanks. For a liberal, Kerry's gun was loaded, while Bush's wasn't. For someone like you, it was Bush who had the loaded gun. And for those precious undecided voters, both candidates were firing live ammo. And I have to believe that the majority of undecided voters watching last night saw Kerry skillfully defeat Bush. And not because his positions were more logically sound (there is a significant number of people in this country who honestly feel that their positions are of equal quality), but because he succeeded in the purpose of the debate.

PS: yeah, get off your high horse and unsticky that shit
:cheers:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3203287 - 10/01/04 08:26 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

We couldn't have gone to war without Congress authorizing the use of force, and John Kerry gave that authorization.



  :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:  I mean yeah, the Bush Admin are such sticklers for the rules.........

AhHAAHAHAHAHAHAh

Quote:

If he really thinks that it was going to stretch us to thin or divert resources from the real target then he had no reason to vote for the war


Bush had already diverted troops when he started the massive troop buildup in the late summer/early fall of 02. 

Quote:

I am still mad that the Kerry camp took shots at Allawi.


While I do respect Allawi, I mean hell, I respect him because he's survived this long, which is REALLY impressive....he was picked by the US appointed Iraq governing council, I mean, he is not a leader picked by the people of Iraq, but rather by those put in place by AMERICA..........


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: infidelGOD]
    #3203325 - 10/01/04 08:42 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

infidelGOD said:
Bush gets a D- for his performance in the debate
you get an F for your analysis of the debate


Yeah man

Pinky.....its pretty gay that your other thread is sticky, actually REALLY gay.....


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Skikid16]
    #3203335 - 10/01/04 08:46 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Ya. I'd like to add that the only real way you can say someone wins on the issues is if you personally happen to agree with them more. Since many posters on this forum don't agree with Bush, it seems a little unfair to sticky a thread saying that Bush wins on the issues.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEkstaza
stranger than most
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3203448 - 10/01/04 09:50 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Question to Bush: Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?

- if we lose our will, we lose, if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy. (sly dig at Kerry's defeatism. Kerry doesn't want to win, Kerry wants to cut and run). Nonsense, Kerry sees the problems involved with a cut and run strategy and is prepared to go the distance in Iraq with a plan for the inevitable and necessary reduction of American troops in the region.


- But we also have to be smart, which means not diverting attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against ObL (no proof ObL is even in Afghanistan anymore. If he is, he no longer has govt support there) That's not the point. The point is that ObL should have been our focus instead of Saddam, who was contained and predictable.

- and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein (bullshit, and many Americans know this. No connection between Hussein and 9-11, okay. No connection between Al-Q and Iraq? Nonsense) This statement leads me to believe that you are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what the truth may be.

- and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein. (again, most Americans recognize there was more to the war than WMD -- which Kerry always said were there anyway. Besides, Kerry himself voted for the "Iraq Regime Change" bill when Clinton was pres, as well as voting to authorize Bush to go to war. He has even said that knowing what we know now he would still have voted for that authorization) Kerry voted for the authorization of force, plain and simple, giving the president the tool of force to be used when necessary. He does not believe that it was necessary at the time it was used. I believe that cops should have guns and that they should be authorized to use them when necessary, but I don't think that all situations are necessarily the time to use that force.

- president has made colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president (tough to make this "judgment" charge stick given Kerry's past statements on Hussein, WMD, Iraq, voting for war, etc. Kerry can't win on this no matter what he says because his prior statements impeach him. Grievous tactical error to go on the attack here because he himself is so vulnerable to devastating counterattack. The only reason he can get away with it is that he is the last to speak here. He needs to hope Lehrer doesn't do a followup. Fortunately, since Lehrer is a Libbie himself, there's little chance of that.)As Kerry said in the debate, he made a mistake in the way he spoke about the war. Bush made a mistake in going to war. Big Difference. Kerry's statements have been twisted and taken out of context in order to take credibility away from him.

- proud that important military figures support me -- Shalikashvili; Eisenhower's son, Admiral William Crown; General McBeak (yeah. all ex military. Big whoop. Extremely lame. "These guys think I'd be better, and they should know, cuz they used to be generals.") Exactly what are you getting at here? I think that the men and women who are fighting or have fought for our country have plenty of valid opinions on national security and if they don't support the current war president, there is a reason.

- ObL escaped, we had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the president outsourced that job too. (Huge error there! You can bet your bottom dollar your average American didn't appreciate the "outsourcing" comment in this context!) I appreciated it very well as I am trained in an industry that is overly outsourced at the moment and I have to work a crappy production line job that endangers my health. With that statement Kerry craftily noted Bush's mistake while tying it to a current issue in the lives of many Americans.

Weak response from Kerry. Lists a few ex-Generals, blames Bush for not micro-managing the commanders in charge of the Tora Bora campaign, uses the tired old "diversion of resources" saw. A big mistake in trying to claim there was no connection between Hussein and terrorism, even knowing that most Americans believe there were. Hell, a significant portion still believe Hussein was involved in 9-11 itself! His many many "stances" on the war in Iraq will hurt him here as well. The "outsourcing" comment was a blunder, pure and simple.

Conclusion -- Bush wins this one handily, despite the cheap shot question he was handed. Lehrer should be ashamed of himself for that one. Bush gets a "B+", Kerry gets a "C-"

Your interpretations of the content of the debate are unique if nothing else.


--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 months, 24 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: silversoul7]
    #3203464 - 10/01/04 10:01 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Since many posters on this forum don't agree with Bush, it seems a little unfair to sticky a thread saying that Bush wins on the issues.




To be fair, I'll unsticky the thread...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Rono]
    #3203512 - 10/01/04 10:20 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

and let it die like bush's control of the election after the debates....


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,084
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 hour, 38 minutes
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3203702 - 10/01/04 11:22 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

You only think Bush won on the issues because you like Bush. If you liked Kerry you would probably say Kerry won.

I didn't see the debate either, but I know Kerry won on the "where's Osama?" issue.






--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month:  The Apple-Glass Cyndrome - Someday



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Learyfan]
    #3203806 - 10/01/04 11:45 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

i couldnt agree more with everyone's posts...

its not fair to sticky and then LOCK a post claiming something stupid like 'bush won' he made it so no one could argue his OPINION just cause he's a mod. bah made me sick.


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Psilygirl]
    #3203921 - 10/01/04 01:10 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

:thumbup:


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Psilygirl]
    #3203933 - 10/01/04 01:13 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

just what i said


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Psilygirl]
    #3204105 - 10/01/04 02:39 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Psilygirl writes:

its not fair to sticky and then LOCK a post claiming something stupid like 'bush won' he made it so no one could argue his OPINION just cause he's a mod. bah made me sick.

What's your point? You are arguing, in a thread that *I* took the trouble to set up specifically for the purpose of criticism, with links going in both directions so that if you catch one (no matter which one) you'll be directed to the other.

If I'd had the time to do the entire analysis before going to sleep, I wouldn't have locked the thread. There would have been no need. But perhaps you as a relative newcomer to the forum are unaware of how easily threads get derailed in this forum. This way no one needs to scroll back through eight pages of irrelevance in order to find when I said this or where I said that.

When I complete the post, I'll unlock it. I didn't lock it to "abuse" my mod powers or to prevent people from criticizing my opinions. If I didn't want people to criticize the post, then why on earth did I go to the trouble of creating this thread, inviting criticism? Note the title of the thread you're currently posting in -- "Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here". Could I possibly have made it any plainer what I wanted you guys to do? I want you to critique my analysis, fa cryin' out loud! That's the whole frickin' purpose of going to all the trouble to set this up!

Tell me what's easier -- having the post to which you are replying in a separate browser window beside the window in which you are replying, or repeatedly scrolling up through pages of intervening material to find the quote from the first post in the thread that you wish to criticize?

And locking a post at the poster's request is not an abuse of mod powers. I get asked by posters to lock their threads, move their threads, delete their threads, sticky their threads. I have yet to refuse such a request, although the threads I sticky do not always remain stickied permanently.

By the way, I am about to add some more to the analysis. You might want to check it out. I look forward to your reasoned criticism of the new material.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3204120 - 10/01/04 02:44 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

A better idea is to use this nifty little program I found called "notepad.exe" :laugh:

If not finished a post but have to leave, just paste the post into notepad and save for later!


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3204186 - 10/01/04 02:58 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I have learned not to doubt Pinky's actions... just his pollitical standings.

Pinky is a very fair guy.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Rose]
    #3204246 - 10/01/04 03:08 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

painfully fair....  :thumbup:


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3204277 - 10/01/04 03:23 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

When I complete the post, I'll unlock it. I didn't lock it to "abuse" my mod powers or to prevent people from criticizing my opinions

So if any member on the left half finishes a post and requests it be made sticky and locked at the top of the board until it's finished you will oblige?

Or does this new "rule" only apply to you?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: trendal]
    #3204324 - 10/01/04 03:38 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

A better idea is to use this nifty little program I found called "notepad.exe"

If not finished a post but have to leave, just paste the post into notepad and save for later! 




:laugh:

:thumbup:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Xlea321]
    #3204342 - 10/01/04 03:42 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

where the hell did rollins make that statement?


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3204552 - 10/01/04 04:40 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Bush did a terrible job even though I believe his logic was more sound. He just repeated the same lines over and over without and dodged questions without refuting Kerry's bullshit.
He did hit very hard on the issues of dissing prime minister Allawi, saying Iraq was a mistake, but it wasn't ten minutes later, and demoralizing the troops. He had alot of good opportunities and passed them up. He looked really bad too.

I was dismayed that Bush was such a weak debater that he let Kerry get away with some ridiculous spin.
It felt like watching Johny Cochrane defending OJ, the prosecutors were nowhere near his league but the facts were on their side. When my freinds say 'Bush acted like an idiot!' I say 'Yes, he is not a good candid speaker and does not react well to public pressure. However, you don't determine the strength of a case by the talent of the lawyer.'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3204696 - 10/01/04 05:38 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

first, you didnt have to single me out when ten other people said the same thing before me. 

second, thats all fine and good but the rest of us dont have that privelege. 

anyways, just dont post and lock such a controversial thread and not expect people to get upset about it.  it's propoganda because it's opinion and you didnt give anyone the chance to respond.  it's like advertisements with fine print--you sticky and lock this controversial thread and then in tiny print make an insignificant post about where you are allowed to debate the debate.

i certainly didnt feel the way you do about the debate and I WATCHED IT, therefore its not fact...its YOUR opinion (and probably others...) but its not necessarily majority enough or truthful enough to lock and sticky.  i vehemently disagree with it.

anyways i'm done i was simply agreeing with what EVERYONE else already wrote, thanks for singling me out, buddy. :thumbup:


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLoki
Ferret Farmer
Trans-male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/04
Posts: 18,296
Loc: Zone ate
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3204705 - 10/01/04 05:42 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

This way no one needs to scroll back through eight pages of irrelevance in order to find when I said this or where I said that.
 




So its a hard thing to click on the page 1 link, and be taken straight back to your first post? Being as how your first post will always be
page [1], you really dont need to scrol through 8 pages :wink:

Who says you make 8 pages anyway ? Large ego at play?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLoki
Ferret Farmer
Trans-male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/04
Posts: 18,296
Loc: Zone ate
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3204721 - 10/01/04 05:49 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Had you just posted it and left it open, it would still be on page one, yet now, even after a long time stuck in place at the top, its on page 3.


Edited by Loki (10/01/04 06:08 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLe_Canard
The Duk Abides

Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3204766 - 10/01/04 06:06 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I'm not too terribly surprised that the opinion on who did better than whom is pretty partisan. I thought Kerry did better just from listening to it, but then, I'm a bit biased... :tongue:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Psilygirl]
    #3204768 - 10/01/04 06:08 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Psilygirl writes:

first, you didnt have to single me out when ten other people said the same thing before me.

It could have been anyone. It happened to be you. What, do you want me to make ten identical posts replying to each of the ten people?

second, thats all fine and good but the rest of us dont have that privelege.

Incorrect. As I pointed out, I have moved, stickied, locked, unlocked, and deleted threads at the request of the authors of those threads, and I will do so again. As a matter of fact, I have never yet declined such a request. If you want me to lock a thread you started in a forum I moderate, just ask.

it's propoganda because it's opinion and you didnt give anyone the chance to respond.

Incorrect. This thread is designed for nothing but responses. I am honestly quite baffled why you have such a hard time grasping this. Is it a different way of responding than the norm? Sure. Is it designed to prevent people from criticizing my opinions? Nope.

it's like advertisements with fine print--you sticky and lock this controversial thread and then in tiny print make an insignificant post about where you are allowed to debate the debate.

Incorrect. It was hardly fine print. What part of
Quote:

I'm gonna lock the thread right after I post what I have so far, and open a response thread http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...amp;PHPSESSID=l . This will allow y'all to shoot me down without cluttering up any additions I make later on. You can cut and paste my comments and address them in the response thread if you feel like it.

Or you can just ignore my comments completely. Your choice.



did I fail to make sufficiently clear? Should I have put it in purple boldface in all caps?

This may surprise you, but I automatically assume readers of this forum are able to read English and know how to click on a link. You will note several posters got the hang of it quite easily -- those who actually responded to the points I raised in my post rather than whining about how impossible it was to post their rebuttals.

anyways i'm done i was simply agreeing with what EVERYONE else already wrote, thanks for singling me out, buddy.

Thank you. Please come again.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3204859 - 10/01/04 06:47 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I watched the first half on TV and listened to the second on the radio, not because I had to but because I remember the thing about the JFK/Nixon debates wherein JFK won on TV but lost on the radio. Either place I thought Kerry was far slicker but some of his content was jaw-droppingly stupid, especially with regard to N. Korea. At no point did I think the content of Bush's answers was ridiculous. I think the giddiness is going to fade when people start talking about what Kerry actually said, as in read the transcript, as Pinky is doing. There is no halting delivery in print. I was frankly stunned that Bush looked so off guard at first but he was quite cautious and didn't say anything stupid. Content does matter, especially when people start parseing what was said


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3204900 - 10/01/04 07:00 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

thats cool.  i just disagree with the way some things were handled and i have the right to share them

:sun:
Psily


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3205654 - 10/02/04 01:03 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Incorrect. As I pointed out, I have moved, stickied, locked, unlocked, and deleted threads at the request of the authors of those threads, and I will do so again.

As I'm sure you're aware that's not the issue everyone else is addressing. Are you claiming you have stickied a half-finished post a left-winger made on a purely political issue and locked it at the top of the board? When did you last do this? I've been here since you became mod and I've certainly never known you do it.

If you want me to lock a thread you started in a forum I moderate, just ask.

Locking a thread at someones request isn't the same as making a half finished purely partisian political post and then locking it yourself at the top of the board. If you had several requests from people on the board to lock your thread at the top of the board then you might've had a leg to stand on.

As a previous poster pointed out your behaviour simply smacks of enormous self-importance.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Psilygirl]
    #3205656 - 10/02/04 01:04 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

thats cool. i just disagree with the way some things were handled and i have the right to share them

Nice handling Psily.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3205999 - 10/02/04 06:01 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I thought Kerry was far slicker but some of his content was jaw-droppingly stupid, especially with regard to N. Korea. At no point did I think the content of Bush's answers was ridiculous. I think the giddiness is going to fade when people start talking about what Kerry actually said, as in read the transcript, as Pinky is doing. There is no halting delivery in print. I was frankly stunned that Bush looked so off guard at first but he was quite cautious and didn't say anything stupid. Content does matter, especially when people start parseing what was said




I would agree with that. Bush could have ended the race with a solid presentation. He already had the facts and the American people on his side. Kerry made some great arguments against a war that he voted for. That won't win many points upon reflection. I think that some of Kerry's statements will haunt him in print, as they always do.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3206004 - 10/02/04 06:07 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I also have to say that I am surprised at the outpouring of "love" for the sharkman. I have never been a moderator of this forum or any other forum on the shroomery. I used to run my own forum. It is a thankless job. And my forum was about sports. I couldn't imagine trying to keep some semblence of order in such a diverse political forum such as this. At least in my forum we were all fans of the same team and people were still rabid animals when it came to public discourse. The moderators here do a great job, and I support them.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3206475 - 10/02/04 10:50 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Everyone is merely pointing out that the mod shouldn't sticky and lock his own political threads at the top of the board. You can surely see the reasoning behind this?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3206483 - 10/02/04 10:53 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

While I think pinky is normally a great moderator and extremely fair, I have to say I disagree with his actions in this particular case. Like trendal said, he could've just used notepad to save the post and work on it later. None of us have the ability to lock and sticky a post and then work on it later, so I don't think it's fair of him to do the same.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAntiMeme
yankee doodledandy
Registered: 08/11/04
Posts: 208
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3206493 - 10/02/04 10:57 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Wow. "Critique" the "analysis". Big words there. This pinksharkmark dude certainly has high thoughts of himself.

And the "debate" was as pointless as the rest of the election circus. Did anybody learn anything new?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: AntiMeme]
    #3206652 - 10/02/04 12:08 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

AntiMeme writes:

"Wow. "Critique" the "analysis". Big words there. This pinksharkmark dude certainly has high thoughts of himself."

Me so sad "critique" and "analysis" too big words for you. Next time me use small words, so you not feel bad you not grasp what me say.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: AntiMeme]
    #3206658 - 10/02/04 12:12 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Did anybody learn anything new?

I learned that if you debate with yourself (which is basically what pinky did in his laughable "analysis"), then you will come to the same conclusions again and again. what a surprise.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAntiMeme
yankee doodledandy
Registered: 08/11/04
Posts: 208
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3206680 - 10/02/04 12:22 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Chill Mark. I'm just saying that you shouldn't use big words when there's no reason to do so. No need to feel hurt, we can't all be levelheaded. Sometimes delusions of grandeur can take you a long way, just look at politicians.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: AntiMeme]
    #3206710 - 10/02/04 12:36 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I'm so sorry, but it never occured to me that by using words whose definitions I learned in grade school I was demonstrating "high thoughts" of myself. Seriously, if you get upset at people using words of two syllables and three syllables in their posts, you are not going to enjoy your time in this forum.

I'm just saying that you shouldn't use big words when there's no reason to do so.

I have an idea. In the interest of improving myself, let me ask you what a better title for a thread inviting criticism of my analysis of the debate would have been. I'm sure you can whip up two or three.

Speaking of delusions of grandeur, here's another three syllable word for you -- irony. Did you ever ask yourself how many people know the meaning of "meme" compared to how many know the meaning of "analysis" or "critique"?

I also find it ironic that in a thread where people are bashing Bush's painfully plain style of speaking and praising Kerry's masterful use of nuance, I get taken to task for using words larger than one syllable.


pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAntiMeme
yankee doodledandy
Registered: 08/11/04
Posts: 208
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3206740 - 10/02/04 12:46 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I'm sure everybody here knows the meaning of "analysis" and "critique", what are you getting at?

As for a better worded title, you would've done much better if you just left it at one unlocked thread called "Pinky's take on the debate". Simplicity can go a long way.

But that's not the point, is it?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: AntiMeme]
    #3206777 - 10/02/04 01:01 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

AntiMeme writes:

I'm sure everybody here knows the meaning of "analysis" and "critique", what are you getting at?

What I'm getting at is your bizarre reaction to my choice of commonly used words that everyone understands -- that it somehow shows I have a high opinion of myself. I repeat, if you're going to take umbrage (oh my goodness -- there I go again!) at the use of words everyone understands, you're going to have a miserable time indeed in this forum.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3206782 - 10/02/04 01:03 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I think he was nonplussed


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3206787 - 10/02/04 01:04 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Or perhaps just bewildered


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3207086 - 10/02/04 03:12 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Flummoxed.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #3207092 - 10/02/04 03:14 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

nonplussed



Quote:

bewildered



Quote:

Flummoxed




Are you guys talking about Antimeme, or Bush?


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3207194 - 10/02/04 03:58 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

pinksharman is definately doing a good job of drawing the focus of this thread (at least according to the majority of the posts) away from his misuse of power to petty bickering.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: newuser1492]
    #3207283 - 10/02/04 04:24 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

cb9fl writes:

pinksharman is definately doing a good job of drawing the focus of this thread (at least according to the majority of the posts) away from his misuse of power to petty bickering.

Still smarting over getting sucked in by that Noam Chomsky parody interview, I see. That was a knee-slapper, wasn't it?

As for "misuse of power", why is it that Skikid16, Cervantes, Gijith, Psilygirl, Fiend, JesusChrist, and KingofTheThing all managed to express their opinions on my observations with no trouble and no reference to the supposed "misuse"? Sometimes in more than one post? It wasn't until MrCrisper decided to whine that some said, "Cool! We can avoid commenting on anything of substance by giving pinky shit instead".

Need I remind you the two who drew focus away from the topic of the thread were MrCrisper and AntiMeme -- not me.

Since you are so admirably concerned with getting the thread back on topic (kudos to you, btw), do you have anything to say about the actual thread topic? We'd all dearly love your thoughts on the debate.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3207331 - 10/02/04 04:37 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

pinky,
before you badmouth Me, Skikid, Cervantes, Psily, Fiend and KOTT, please understand that most accusation of misuse wasn't so much in regards to the locking, as it was to the sticky. When I first posted, the thread was locked, but not stickied. I'm not exaclty sure when you stickied it, but it was definitely after you locked it. As soon as I saw it was stickied, I clicked on the thread, saw MrCrisper had beat me to the punch and agreed with him.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3207347 - 10/02/04 04:42 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

i told you what i thought, but what the fuck, i'll repeat it AGAIN

while both had some factual exaggerations, i thought BUSH GOT HIS ASS KICKED, HE FUCKING SUCKED. his policies sucked, his debating skills sucked, his crap about the widow was so fake it was unbelievable... everything about him sucked

while kerry wasnt always filled with the best facts/ideas, they were presented much more clearly and more filled with intelligence. he had an introduction, body and conclusion that was logical. he didnt act like a child and revert back to saying "well... he... he FLIP FLOPS DAMMIT" like bush when he couldnt think of anything to say. he was confident and presdiential and WON THE DEBATE.

we disagree, let it go. i dont care what blogs you read, what transcripts you read, you didnt see it, plain and simple. you're allowed to have you're opinion. i dont share yours. chill the fuck out.

we're allowed to have this opinion stop attacking us like we're not.


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePsilygirl
cyan goddess
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/28/03
Posts: 4,418
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Psilygirl]
    #3207356 - 10/02/04 04:44 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

oh yeah and quit with the nitpicking of every sentence, i'm not gonna fucking respond to you're "what do you mean by "attack" give a specific example" quarrels.

its so fucking annoying.


--------------------
"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing.' Between the two, my life flows."


Puget Sound Mycological Society


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEkstaza
stranger than most
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3207560 - 10/02/04 05:36 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said to cb9fl:

Since you are so admirably concerned with getting the thread back on topic (kudos to you, btw), do you have anything to say about the actual thread topic? We'd all dearly love your thoughts on the debate.

pinky




I did but you paid no attention.
Do you care to look at it now?
Quote:

Ekstaza said:

Question to Bush: Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?

- if we lose our will, we lose, if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy. (sly dig at Kerry's defeatism. Kerry doesn't want to win, Kerry wants to cut and run). Nonsense, Kerry sees the problems involved with a cut and run strategy and is prepared to go the distance in Iraq with a plan for the inevitable and necessary reduction of American troops in the region.


- But we also have to be smart, which means not diverting attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against ObL (no proof ObL is even in Afghanistan anymore. If he is, he no longer has govt support there) That's not the point. The point is that ObL should have been our focus instead of Saddam, who was contained and predictable.

- and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein (bullshit, and many Americans know this. No connection between Hussein and 9-11, okay. No connection between Al-Q and Iraq? Nonsense) This statement leads me to believe that you are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what the truth may be.

- and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein. (again, most Americans recognize there was more to the war than WMD -- which Kerry always said were there anyway. Besides, Kerry himself voted for the "Iraq Regime Change" bill when Clinton was pres, as well as voting to authorize Bush to go to war. He has even said that knowing what we know now he would still have voted for that authorization) Kerry voted for the authorization of force, plain and simple, giving the president the tool of force to be used when necessary. He does not believe that it was necessary at the time it was used. I believe that cops should have guns and that they should be authorized to use them when necessary, but I don't think that all situations are necessarily the time to use that force.

- president has made colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president (tough to make this "judgment" charge stick given Kerry's past statements on Hussein, WMD, Iraq, voting for war, etc. Kerry can't win on this no matter what he says because his prior statements impeach him. Grievous tactical error to go on the attack here because he himself is so vulnerable to devastating counterattack. The only reason he can get away with it is that he is the last to speak here. He needs to hope Lehrer doesn't do a followup. Fortunately, since Lehrer is a Libbie himself, there's little chance of that.)As Kerry said in the debate, he made a mistake in the way he spoke about the war. Bush made a mistake in going to war. Big Difference. Kerry's statements have been twisted and taken out of context in order to take credibility away from him.

- proud that important military figures support me -- Shalikashvili; Eisenhower's son, Admiral William Crown; General McBeak (yeah. all ex military. Big whoop. Extremely lame. "These guys think I'd be better, and they should know, cuz they used to be generals.") Exactly what are you getting at here? I think that the men and women who are fighting or have fought for our country have plenty of valid opinions on national security and if they don't support the current war president, there is a reason.

- ObL escaped, we had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the president outsourced that job too. (Huge error there! You can bet your bottom dollar your average American didn't appreciate the "outsourcing" comment in this context!) I appreciated it very well as I am trained in an industry that is overly outsourced at the moment and I have to work a crappy production line job that endangers my health. With that statement Kerry craftily noted Bush's mistake while tying it to a current issue in the lives of many Americans.

Weak response from Kerry. Lists a few ex-Generals, blames Bush for not micro-managing the commanders in charge of the Tora Bora campaign, uses the tired old "diversion of resources" saw. A big mistake in trying to claim there was no connection between Hussein and terrorism, even knowing that most Americans believe there were. Hell, a significant portion still believe Hussein was involved in 9-11 itself! His many many "stances" on the war in Iraq will hurt him here as well. The "outsourcing" comment was a blunder, pure and simple.

Conclusion -- Bush wins this one handily, despite the cheap shot question he was handed. Lehrer should be ashamed of himself for that one. Bush gets a "B+", Kerry gets a "C-"

Your interpretations of the content of the debate are unique if nothing else.






--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Ekstaza]
    #3207694 - 10/02/04 06:36 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Ekstaza said:
I appreciated it very well as I am trained in an industry that is overly outsourced at the moment and I have to work a crappy production line job that endangers my health. With that statement Kerry craftily noted Bush's mistake while tying it to a current issue in the lives of many Americans.




"I am trained"  You listed your occupation as college student in April of 03.  You are trained at nothing.

"In an industry that is overly outsourced"  What, do you make sneakers?  Or should everybody else pay to prop up YOUR salary?  Stop whining and find a career with a future, like plumbing.

"I have to work a crappy production line job that endangers my health"  No you don't.  Or do you think you have to support the sixteen year old mother of your two kids slaving over the toxic fumes of a fry-o-lator? 

Aside from your own tiny self interest, just what jobs do you think the government should protect at the expense of the consuming public?  Some college student with no dependants?  ALL protection is at the expense of the consumer.  You fucked up.  The good news is that you are still young and may still find a useful niche in the work world some day.  I'd give up the IT thing though.  Really just fancy receptionists. :cool:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Gijith]
    #3208291 - 10/02/04 09:14 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Gijith writes:

before you badmouth Me, Skikid, Cervantes, Psily, Fiend and KOTT, please understand that most accusation of misuse wasn't so much in regards to the locking, as it was to the sticky.

I have no intention of badmouthing any of you. What, now it's not enough that I get shit for what I did, but for what I might do?

Damn. Too many of y'all have waaaaay too thin skins (hence the affinity to Kerry, perhaps) to have a chance of making your own way in the world without government assistance. Try to understand that it's not always all about your desires.

I find it exquisitely amusing that those who claim to be so flexible, so "of the moment", so "in tune with the flow", so "open-minded" because of the sacred fungi find it so devastatingly harsh to be faced with the unexpected: "Gee, we can't just respond directly to this thread as we have always done in the past (we have always been at war with Eastasia) -- for a whole twenty hours we must actually first click on a link and then respond to the thread. But... but... this just isn't right!"

Adaptability is all, grasshopper. There will be many times in life when no one clad in an aluminum foil beanie is there to hold your hand and tell you exactly which chad of the butterfly ballot you must dislodge (completely, mind you) in order to reach nirvana.

The freaking thread was stickied for approximately seven hours. I thought we hippies of the Sixties and Seventies had a problem with delayed gratification, but I had no idea that I could enrage a whole generation of mushroom consumers who couldn't handle a wait that encompasses less time than a standard four dry gram mushroom trip.

I guess that even after more than half a century of living on this wonderful and amazing planet, there are still things about my fellow humans that can amaze me. Good to know. Sometimes a wakeup call can be refreshing.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3208333 - 10/02/04 09:22 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
It wasn't until MrCrisper decided to whine that some said, "Cool! We can avoid commenting on anything of substance by giving pinky shit instead".




That's all I was referrring to. No thin skin here, Master Po.

:cheers:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3208334 - 10/02/04 09:22 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Pinky said:
As for "misuse of power", why is it that Skikid16, Cervantes, Gijith, Psilygirl, Fiend, JesusChrist, and KingofTheThing all managed to express their opinions on my observations with no trouble and no reference to the supposed "misuse"?




Bush said we were attacked by Sadam. Kerry corected him. Bush curtly replied, "I know who Bin Laden is!"

Look it up.

Bush misled the country into supporting war by repeatedly confusing Iraq with Al Quaeda. This is the core argument stating Bush misused his power by leading the USA to war with Iraq. During the State of the Union Address, Bush said Iraq was persuing nukes! Bush mentions Iraq and Al Quaeda all the time without distinguishing the two. During the debate, Bush said Iraq attacked us!

Is it any wonder 40% of Americans still believe Sadam attacked us on 9-11?

Bush mislead his country to go to war by lying, misguiding and confusing. THAT is MISUSE of power.

Get it Pink?

THAT is why liberals say Bush misused his Presidential power.

Last Thursday, Bush said Iraq attacked us, on live tv, during a debate. Kerry jumped on it and set the record straight.

All Bush could say was, "I know who Bin Laden is!"

Pathetic.

I'm afraid I can't find this part of the debate in your post Pink. You abridged a lot. Perhaps it was deleted.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Edited by Rose (10/02/04 09:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEkstaza
stranger than most
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3208384 - 10/02/04 09:37 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

"I am trained" You listed your occupation as college student in April of 03. You are trained at nothing.
What do you know about jack shit? Nothing! I am a college graduate with two associates degrees in computer sciences. I didn't start college in 2003, but I was still a student then.

"In an industry that is overly outsourced" What, do you make sneakers? Or should everybody else pay to prop up YOUR salary? Stop whining and find a career with a future, like plumbing.
What are you, some kind of blue collar supremecist? Do you think that worthwhile work only consists of labor intensive tasks? I don't plan on breaking my back the rest of my life to make someone else rich. That's why I got an education. Don't blame me for your life choices, because that's what you seem to be doing, complaining about me wanting a decent salary and job security.

"I have to work a crappy production line job that endangers my health" No you don't. Or do you think you have to support the sixteen year old mother of your two kids slaving over the toxic fumes of a fry-o-lator?
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you assume that everyone shares the same details in their life as you do? I am successfully childless, the way I plan to be for some time to come. In the civilized world of today, some of us have figured out ways to prevent unwanted births, unlike your parents.


--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.


Edited by Ekstaza (10/03/04 09:11 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Ekstaza]
    #3208385 - 10/02/04 09:37 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Yes Ekstaza, you are one who actually adressed the substance of my comments and deserve an answer. I had intended to get around to it within 24 hours, but I hope you understand that I do have a life outside The Shroomery. Thank you for your patience.

Ekstaza writes:

Nonsense, Kerry sees the problems involved with a cut and run strategy and is prepared to go the distance in Iraq with a plan for the inevitable and necessary reduction of American troops in the region.

As is Bush. The difference is that Bush wants to win the war first and then decide how best to withdraw. Kerry wants to decide how to withdraw without hurting himself politically. He doesn't give a rat's ass whether the war is won first.

That's not the point. The point is that ObL should have been our focus instead of Saddam, who was contained and predictable.

Kerry may find it difficult to walk and chew gum simultaneously. Bush (and the average American) don't share that handicap.

This statement leads me to believe that you are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what the truth may be.

And the above statement leads me to believe that you choose not to investigate the numerous well-documented connections between Ba'athist Iraq and Islamofascist operators.

Kerry voted for the authorization of force, plain and simple, giving the president the tool of force to be used when necessary. He does not believe that it was necessary at the time it was used. I believe that cops should have guns and that they should be authorized to use them when necessary, but I don't think that all situations are necessarily the time to use that force.

Then your beef is not with Bush, but with Kerry. Congress abdicated its responsibility to declare war by voting as they did. They washed their hands of the whole matter, of their own free will.

s Kerry said in the debate, he made a mistake in the way he spoke about the war. Bush made a mistake in going to war. Big Difference. Kerry's statements have been twisted and taken out of context in order to take credibility away from him.

Kerry'smistake was not in how he spoke, but how he voted. Anyone with an IQ moderately in exceeding that of a modern microwave oven could see that the vote relieved Congress of the responsibility and passed it to the Commander and Chief. If the war went well, they could all pat themselves on the back. If it hit a rough stretch, they could cry "But we didn't think you'd take us seriously!" Actions have consequences.

I appreciated it very well as I am trained in an industry that is overly outsourced at the moment and I have to work a crappy production line job that endangers my health. With that statement Kerry craftily noted Bush's mistake while tying it to a current issue in the lives of many Americans.

What part of "average American" do you have difficulty grasping? The average American is in no danger of having his job outsourced. I feel sympathy that the career path you have chosen to pursue is one open to foreign competition, but to claim that you represent the "average American" is to indulge in what psychologists term "projection".



pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Rose]
    #3208394 - 10/02/04 09:40 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Cervantes writes:

During the State of the Union Address, Bush said Iraq was persuing nukes!

They were.

I'm afraid I can't find this part of the debate in your post Pink. You abridged a lot. Perhaps it was deleted.

This is why I was careful to include a link to the transcript of the debate in my post. You can click on the link and refresh our memory by reviewing the transcript.


pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3208408 - 10/02/04 09:44 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

You're the one who didn't notice...

... and the FOX link's dead, BTW.

But, I'll dig it up.

Lazy bastard.

:smirk:


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3208446 - 10/02/04 09:55 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

From MSNBC:
http://msnbc.msn.com/?querytext=debate+t...action=fulltext

I bolded key statements from Lehr, Kerry and Bush... to help you spot it. I included the entire question and all of its answers so you could read the event as it unfolded... in black and white. All you miss is how defensive Bush sounded... and how uncomfortable he looked.

LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?

BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running?when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I?d be doing that.

But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.

I think that by speaking clearly and doing what we say and not sending mixed messages, it is less likely we?ll ever have to use troops.

But a president must always be willing to use troops. It must?as a last resort.

I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq. It was falling apart. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was hoping that the world would turn a blind eye.

And if he had been in power, in other words, if we would have said, ?Let the inspectors work, or let?s, you know, hope to talk him out. Maybe an 18th resolution would work,? he would have been stronger and tougher, and the world would have been a lot worse off. There?s just no doubt in my mind we would rue the day, had Saddam Hussein been in power.

So we use diplomacy every chance we get, believe me. And I would hope to never have to use force.

But by speaking clearly and sending messages that we mean what we say, we?ve affected the world in a positive way.

Look at Libya. Libya was a threat. Libya is now peacefully dismantling its weapons programs.

Libya understood that America and others will enforce doctrine and that the world is better for it.

So to answer your question, I would hope we never have to. I think by acting firmly and decisively, it will mean it is less likely we have to use force.

LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.

KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, ?The enemy attacked us.?

Saddam Hussein didn?t attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. al Qaeda attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn?t use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world?s number one criminal and terrorist.

They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other.

That?s the enemy that attacked us. That?s the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains. That?s the enemy that is now in 60 countries, with stronger recruits.

He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening.


If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, ?What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?? we?d be in a stronger place today.

LEHRER: Thirty seconds.

BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.

And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion.

We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye. And, yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made weapons.


LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Senator.

KERRY: Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he?s been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea?s gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide.

The world is more dangerous. I?d have made a better choice.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Edited by Rose (10/02/04 11:17 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,867
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: ]
    #3209109 - 10/03/04 03:55 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

How is us being like 90% of the Iraq force, with the remaining countries comprising the rest, qualify as a "strong coalition"? It seems to me like it's us and a few tag alongs that make a negligible difference.





Do you not realise that most other countries do not have large military forces?
I don't EXPECT Canada, or Poland, or Turkey, or whatever other country you might think of, to send much of a force.
Hell, they don't when the UN sends in an international force either.
The strength isn't their numbers but their commitment.

Quote:

North Korea now has nukes? Why, if Bush thinks nukes are the scariest threat to America, did he let North Korea get Nukes? Oh yeah... Iraq.




May.. have nukes.
And North Korea is not idealogically married to the idea that America is the Great Satan that must be destroyed.
they just don't like us very much, and realize that we've got a lot more stuff than them, and that by banging on the nuclear issue they can get things for free. Didn't Clinton give them a shitton of oil to give up on their nuclear program?
North Korea wants wealth and respect.. not our destruction. Same deal as China, basically.

Quote:

Is it any wonder 40% of Americans still believe Sadam attacked us on 9-11?




What I find wonderous is that, considering 80% of Americans are barely bright enough to tie their shoes, that half of them know anything about Saddam OR Bin Laden.

Quote:

From MSNBC:
http://msnbc.msn.com/?querytext=debate+t...action=fulltext

I bolded key statements from Lehr, Kerry and Bush... to help you spot it. I included the entire question and all of its answers so you could read the event as it unfolded... in black and white. All you miss is how defensive Bush sounded... and how uncomfortable he looked.




Note in there that Bush never said Saddam attacked us. We were attacked -- things were going downhill for America. Kerry grabbed the Saddam-attacked-us comment out of left field.

Quote:

He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening.




Saddam has been continually violating the no-fly zones and either kicking weapons inspectors out of his country or delaying them for periods of time long enough to hide any weapons that may have been at the facilities they were attempting to inspect.
He didn't give two shits when Clinton kept trying that. What makes you think he's give two shits if Kerry tried the same things over and over?
HE LOVED IT. Dead baby parades.. SEE what the EVIL AMERICAN SANCTIONS are doing to us!



John Kerry just made himself look stupid. Sorry, but he did. Think about what he was saying.. it was stupid.
More weapons inspectors when for the past decade they haven't been able to do anything. Saddam's been disrespecting them and the UN for this long -- why would he suddenly change?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEkstaza
stranger than most
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Mushmonkey]
    #3209357 - 10/03/04 08:58 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Mushmonkey said:

Quote:

North Korea now has nukes? Why, if Bush thinks nukes are the scariest threat to America, did he let North Korea get Nukes? Oh yeah... Iraq. 




May.. have nukes.
And North Korea is not idealogically married to the idea that America is the Great Satan that must be destroyed.
they just don't like us very much, and realize that we've got a lot more stuff than them, and that by banging on the nuclear issue they can get things for free.  Didn't Clinton give them a shitton of oil to give up on their nuclear program?
North Korea wants wealth and respect.. not our destruction.  Same deal as China, basically.





Oh really!!?
Just take a look at how the North Korean educational system is teaching their kids about the Great Satan. :thumbdown: :sad: :mad2:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/26/60minutes/main602415.shtml


--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Ekstaza]
    #3209359 - 10/03/04 09:01 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Mushmonkey doesn't like to look at Facts, I think he's afraid of them


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Mushmonkey]
    #3209638 - 10/03/04 01:05 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Mushmonkey said:

Quote:


Cervantes said:
From MSNBC:
http://msnbc.msn.com/?querytext=debate+t...action=fulltext

I bolded key statements from Lehr, Kerry and Bush... to help you spot it. I included the entire question and all of its answers so you could read the event as it unfolded... in black and white. All you miss is how defensive Bush sounded... and how uncomfortable he looked.




Note in there that Bush never said Saddam attacked us. We were attacked -- things were going downhill for America. Kerry grabbed the Saddam-attacked-us comment out of left field.





No, not left field. The question was about our war with Iraq. It has NOTHING to do with 9-11. It has nothing to do with us being attacked...

Unless you ask Bush.

Sorry... try again.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Rose]
    #3210462 - 10/03/04 04:31 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Cervantes writes:

Bush said we were attacked by Sadam.

Actually, he didn't. However, Saddam was regularly attacking US and British airplanes patrolling the no fly zones.

Bush misled the country into supporting war by repeatedly confusing Iraq with Al Quaeda.

Actually, no he didn't. The reason for deposing Hussein was Hussein's continued refusal to honor any of the terms of the conditional ceasefire. This same reason was given as a justification for the Iraq Regime Change Bill passed when Clinton was prez. Kerry voted for that bill. As a matter of fact, Kerry in an interview in 1997 defended the right of the US to pre-emptively attack Iraq.

During the State of the Union Address, Bush said Iraq was persuing nukes!

He was. Iraqi nuke scientists have confirmed that.

During the debate, Bush said Iraq attacked us!

No he didn't.

Last Thursday, Bush said Iraq attacked us, on live tv, during a debate.

No he didn't. There are multiple sources now with transcripts of the debate. Maybe you'd like to point us to one which shows Bush saying Iraq attacked the US.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3210472 - 10/03/04 04:36 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

OK, I'll concede Bush did not say "Iraq" attacked us...

If you concede Bush said, during the debate, "The enemy attacked us," to explain WHY WE PREEMPTIVELY STRUCK IRAQ. Bush suggested 9-11 was a reason to premptively strike Iraq. He is accusing Iraq of attacking us. When, at the time, Iraq had nothing to do with al Quaeda. This isn't rocket science Pinky.

During the debate, Bush used 9-11 as reason to preemptively wage war with Iraq. Of that, there is no doubt.

Talk about misleading your nation.

Kerry mentioned Dubbya's blunder, and Bush did not even rebute Kerry's point. Not like you attempted to do, Pinky.

Unless this counts as a rebuttal:

Quote:

BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us.
I know that.




He practically yelled it.

Bush looked bad.

He had an oppertunity to address a very important issue in front of a national audience... and he squandered it.

Oh... and this just in. The new Gallup poll shows Kerry and Bush are tied. 49% to 49%


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Edited by Rose (10/03/04 05:56 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3210668 - 10/03/04 05:42 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

If I'd had the time to do the entire analysis before going to sleep, I wouldn't have locked the thread. There would have been no need. But perhaps you as a relative newcomer to the forum are unaware of how easily threads get derailed in this forum. This way no one needs to scroll back through eight pages of irrelevance



:rotfl: Now THERE'S irony for ya :smile:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAhHaHaHa
there issomething on myshoulder
Registered: 08/29/04
Posts: 199
Loc: upon the east
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Rose]
    #3210972 - 10/03/04 07:28 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

The fact is they both were staggering. All Bush said was that Kerry was a flip flopper. Kerry said he would get international help in Iraq. They both were weak. However Kerry did appear stronger, just because he addressed the question with somewhat of an answer. Both the attitudes of the candidates were the same. Kerry would'nt stop taking notes. What the hell was he writing anyway? Maybe he thought that would make him look intelligent. Bush did appear hot headed and a little bit anxious. But nothing compares to Gore's snikering and interuptions in the last debate. That is my standard for hot headed behavior. If I was basing my decision on the debate, I would vote for Kerry.


--------------------
So Im packing my bags for the mysty mountains where the spirits go.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineallmakescombined
Boss Man

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 384
Loc: My Office
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: AhHaHaHa]
    #3211156 - 10/03/04 08:19 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Bush had his ass handed to him. I was actually quite impressed with John Kerry's performance. Even his condolences to the state of Florida for its hurricanes sunk Bush into the hole.

Debating is where Kerry shines. He's a master debater. It's also what senators do, anyway. Bush was obviously frustrated. He would always turn his head and look at the opposite direciton of Kerry when the heat was on.

The debates though are Kerry's last chance to to win this election.


--------------------
Get back to work.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Xlea321]
    #3211169 - 10/03/04 08:23 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Yes they are... and it looks like Kerry caught up in just one debate.

Everyone was saying foreign policy is where Bush would shine... but Kerry won.

The next two debates are about domestic issues.

Kerry's in a very good position.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Rose]
    #3212015 - 10/03/04 11:25 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Cervantes said:
Bush suggested 9-11 was a reason to premptively strike Iraq. He is accusing Iraq of attacking us. When, at the time, Iraq had nothing to do with al Quaeda. This isn't rocket science Pinky.

During the debate, Bush used 9-11 as reason to preemptively wage war with Iraq. Of that, there is no doubt.






I think it is pretty obvious that he meant 911 was a catalyst for the doctrine of pre-emption. He never said nor meant that 911 was the direct justifaction for Iraq, but rather that it caused a shift in the way the US responds to potential threats. Because we neglected Bin Laden before 911, and North Korea before it got nukes, it follows we should not neglect Iraq until it becomes a major problem that we cannot solve.

Sometimes I am almost surprised how much people willfilly misinterperet Bush to suit their prejudaces.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3212066 - 10/03/04 11:34 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

And again, I'll say:

If THAT is what Bush meant, why didn't Dubbya say anything of the sort when he was given time to rebute Kerry?

He didn't, you did.

Put whatever words you wish in Bush's mouth AFTER the debate.

Bush looked bad.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Edited by Rose (10/03/04 11:35 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3212203 - 10/04/04 12:01 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Bush and his whole administration have been saying the exact same thing I just did for two years now, but when he fumbles in one debate you twist his meaning to something that is not only completely different but makes no sense at all. If you can recognize how poorly he debated and how he screwed up at almost every turn it should be clear that in this instance that what he meant to say just came out wrong. If you don't believe that, I suggest you go back and read what Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell have all said about 911 and pre-emption over the last 2-3 years.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3213357 - 10/04/04 11:02 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Divided_Sky said:
Bush and his whole administration have been saying the exact same thing I just did for two years now, but when he fumbles in one debate you twist his meaning to something that is not only completely different but makes no sense at all. If you can recognize how poorly he debated and how he screwed up at almost every turn it should be clear that in this instance that what he meant to say just came out wrong. If you don't believe that, I suggest you go back and read what Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell have all said about 911 and pre-emption over the last 2-3 years.




Oh god. Spare us the "he's such a feeble minded dumbass that if he can just manage to work the microphone he won the debate" garbage. I'm sick of the spin of how bush is just your average joe trying to stand up against those evil educated libruls and all that crap. Bush is a moron. His policy if flawed. He has failed as a president. You're trying to make him look good by saying that he did pretty good considering all his faults and failings. What crap.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3213422 - 10/04/04 11:24 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

This is mainly for pinky so he can easily listen to the debate for free. Anyway, if you're an itunes user you can get an audio version of the whole debate for free. I recommend it for anyone who has only read transcripts.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: unbeliever]
    #3213573 - 10/04/04 12:05 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

unbeliever said:
Oh god. Spare us the "he's such a feeble minded dumbass that if he can just manage to work the microphone he won the debate" garbage. I'm sick of the spin of how bush is just your average joe trying to stand up against those evil educated libruls and all that crap. Bush is a moron. His policy if flawed. He has failed as a president. You're trying to make him look good by saying that he did pretty good considering all his faults and failings. What crap.




What the real issue of the debate should have been is the substance of what the canidates said. Now Bush had made his policy and his beliefs very clear already so he had little to prove in this debate. However his poor presentation skills harmed him greatly.

Now Kerry on the other hand was a blank slate and needed to be very clear and precise in his substance. Take a gander at what kerry said.... His policy is unworkable and a fucking joke. But he sounded good while he said it so its all good then i guess.


Not specifically you unbeliever but i find it funny that people make such a big deal over Kerry delivering a good presentation even though the policy he outlined is an unworkable joke, when they used to whine about righties praising Bush for his confidence and assertion in his policies even though they(the lefties, not righties) think they are bad. Double standard?


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3213705 - 10/04/04 12:32 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I'm listening to the debate (again) right this moment. Kerry does make specific statements about what he's going to do. Summits, more emphasis on involving allies and building those alliances. The problem of course is the format. With only 2 minutes for questions, 90 seconds for rebuttal and the occasional 30 second extension there just isn't time to outline the complexities of specific plans. Bush just promises more of the same. So expect more 1000's of americans to die for lies in iraq, 10's of thousands more iraqis to die. At what point do we get to where we've killed more iraqis that saddam ever did?

In any case I don't think the debate is supposed to be about the minutea of their policy plans. It IS mostly about presentation, getting across a basic conviction, intelligence, compassion and capability. I can't imagine any one truthfully saying Bush accomplished that.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: unbeliever]
    #3214748 - 10/04/04 04:26 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

unbeliever said:
This is mainly for pinky so he can easily listen to the debate for free. Anyway, if you're an itunes user you can get an audio version of the whole debate for free. I recommend it for anyone who has only read transcripts.




I also recommend that anyone who has just seen/heard the debate should read the transcript. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/politics/campaign/01dtext.html?oref=login
You might get a different impression if you pay attention to what Kerry actually said. He wants to supply Iran with uranium if they will promise not to make bombs (They have more oil than they can use, this policy worked real well for Clinton in N. Korea, and the Iranians have already rejected that notion, essentially saying we can make our own and we'll do what we want with it. Now what asshole). He wants to cut out China, SK, Japan, Russia from discussion with the nut job in NK. Aside from the fact that that is exactly what the kim ill loon wants, what do you think that says to our supposed allies when we have a president who thinks he alone should be making policy for them with the world's top whack job, who just so happens to live RIGHT NEXT DOOR to them. There's more, but I have to make dinner. All you Kerry girls need to take a breath. The shitstorm about what he said has yet to coalesce.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3215029 - 10/04/04 05:36 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)



October 04, 2004, 9:39 a.m.
Mark Levin

Slighting Substance
Kerry?s statements deserve greater scrutiny.

I hate to swim against the current, but shouldn't we pay more attention to what John Kerry actually said during Thursday night's debate? Apparently the mainstream media doesn't think so.

Iran: Kerry made this remarkable statement about how he would have confronted Iran's frenzied efforts to secure nuclear weapons: "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together."

President Bush made the point that sanctions are already in place. But why hasn't Kerry's proposal received any attention, let alone the condemnation it deserves? (At the moment, only the Iranians themselves have given it the time of day, saying it would be "irrational" for them to jeopardize their country's nuclear program by relying on foreign supplies.) In a rare declarative statement, Kerry proposed providing the most active terrorist regime ? which harbors al Qaeda terrorists, is sending them into Iraq to attack our forces, and threatens to attack Israel with nuclear weapons ? with material that can be used to speed up their nuclear-weapons program. He's offering to do for Iran what Bill Clinton did for North Korea: arm it. This is stunning.

North Korea: Some have pointed out that while Kerry argues a coalition of over 30 nations in Iraq is not a coalition, he calls for bilateral negotiations with North Korea. Another obvious question is what exactly Kerry would tell Kim Jong-Il that, say, Bill Clinton didn't already discuss with him? Moreover, what does Kerry want to offer this tyrant that is so compelling he can only discuss it in a one-on-one negotiation? Does anyone know?

"Mistake": Kerry said, "the president made a mistake in invading Iraq." But later, Jim Lehrer asked him, "Are Americans now dying in Iraq for mistake?" Kerry answered, "No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put ? that I'm offering." So, the war in Iraq is a mistake, but soldiers who die fighting the war aren't dying for a mistake? What kind of perverse thinking is this?

Global Test: While numerous conservatives have noted Kerry's astounding comment about a president having to pass "the global test" to "prove to the world that [he took military action] for legitimate reasons," the mainstream media seem to have missed it. Where's the discussion on the editorial and op-ed pages? Where's the "news analysis?"

The post-debate discussion has been about style and impressions and the president's missed opportunities. Okay. But to the near exclusion of substance? These are affirmatively stated positions that require further inquiry, despite the fact that the next debate is about domestic issues.

Then there were two incredible gaffes that would have splashed across the front pages of every major newspaper had they been uttered by the president.

Treblinka: Kerry said, "Well, let me just say quickly that I've had an extraordinary experience of watching up close and personal that transition in Russia, because I was there right after the transformation. And I was probably one of the first senators...to go down into the KGB underneath Treblinka Square and see reams of files with names in them. It sort of brought home the transition to democracy that Russia was trying to make."

As everyone but Kerry knows, Treblinka was a Nazi death camp. He meant Lubianka. This is on a par with Gerald Ford's mistake in his debate with Jimmy Carter when he said that Poland was not controlled by the Soviet Union. Some believe that cost Ford the presidency. But nary a word about Kerry's error has appeared in the mainstream media.

Armistice: Kerry said, "... I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues [with North Korea], from the Armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table."

A small thing, but the armistice ending the Korean War was signed on July 27, 1953, not 1952. Dwight Eisenhower was president at the time. Again, this has been completely ignored. Would it have been ignored if Bush had made the mistake?

Interestingly, as I reviewed the debate transcript, I found no such factual errors or gaffes from the president.

I've observed many presidential debates over the years, and I understand that more than substance is considered by commentators, analysts, and voters. But I've never witnessed a post-debate situation in which substance has been so minimized. (The fact that the president did not confront Kerry on these statements during the debate is no explanation.) This isn't the swimsuit portion of the Miss America contest. We're deciding on the next commander-in-chief in the midst of a war. You'd think substance would be more important than ever.

? Mark R. Levin is president of Landmark Legal Foundation and talk-radio host on WABC 770 AM in New York.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3215088 - 10/04/04 05:47 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I did not read Levin before I made my post.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3215732 - 10/04/04 08:15 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I thought it supplemented your post well, I wasn't implying that you took his ideas.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* In deference to nugsarenice...
( 1 2 all )
Phred 1,586 20 05/24/02 10:42 AM
by wingnutx
* Kerry cheats at first debate?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Phred 6,729 148 10/05/04 12:53 PM
by Vvellum
* Old Debate Cont'd.... nugsarenice 592 3 07/09/02 06:21 AM
by hongomon
* Superb analysis of the financial "bailout"
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Phred 5,286 105 09/29/08 12:29 PM
by johnm214
* Should US Presidential Debates be hosted by private parties? Should they be allowed to copyright it? johnm214 743 7 04/22/08 10:53 AM
by Ferris
* An Ontological Anarchists critique of traditional activism and reality? Mystic_Cannibal 1,542 9 01/06/08 09:55 PM
by zorbman
* Preemptive nuclear strike? newuser1492 609 2 09/12/05 09:10 PM
by newuser1492
* How can Kerry win the debates...
( 1 2 3 all )
Phred 3,023 46 10/03/04 10:18 PM
by Rono

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,006 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.072 seconds spending 0.018 seconds on 14 queries.