Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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!

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Ekstaza]
    #3209359 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Mushmonkey]
    #3209638 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Rose]
    #3210462 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3210472 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3210668 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Rose]
    #3210972 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: AhHaHaHa]
    #3211156 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Xlea321]
    #3211169 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Rose]
    #3212015 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3212066 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3212203 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3213357 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3213422 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: unbeliever]
    #3213573 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3213705 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: unbeliever]
    #3214748 -

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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3215029 -



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
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3215088 -

I did not read Levin before I made my post.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Critique pinky's analysis of the debate here [Re: Phred]
    #3215732 -

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 ]

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* In deference to nugsarenice...
( 1 2 all )		 Phred 1,857 20 05/24/02 10:42 AM
by wingnutx
* Kerry cheats at first debate?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 Phred 7,116 148 10/05/04 12:53 PM
by Vvellum
* Old Debate Cont'd.... nugsarenice 620 3 07/09/02 06:21 AM
by hongomon
* Superb analysis of the financial "bailout"
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Phred 5,582 105 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 791 7 04/22/08 10:53 AM
by Ferris
* An Ontological Anarchists critique of traditional activism and reality? Mystic_Cannibal 1,593 9 01/06/08 09:55 PM
by zorbman
* Preemptive nuclear strike? newuser1492 639 2 09/12/05 09:10 PM
by newuser1492
* How can Kerry win the debates...
( 1 2 3 all )		 Phred 3,267 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
5,540 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 21 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 15 queries.