Originally posted by MC Mike
Now see people, this is the response by a Pro-Bush person. (Or Anti-Kerry).Convincing? 😐
I f you seriously believe that there has been a debate since the advent of TV then you are dellusional.... hysterical it doesn't matter what a person looks like ... its what they say... Thats why in the modern world FDR or Theodor Rosevelt or Taft or nearly any person who was President before would have been elected....
I am taking a communications college class and my teacher is basically sickened by the idea of debates today... they are basically hour long sets of commercials pasted together.... 😬
I would crush either of the so called "debaters" into the ground in a real debate.... 😐
well, you are correct in that TV puts a huge twist on a debate.
would clinton have won without TV? would JFK have won?
they looked handome, cool, and relaxed while their opponents, nixon and bush senior, looked like nervous sweaty old men.
but this debate is different. image does not matter. in fact, i would say kerry was beaten faaar more severely with the ugly stick than bush...who might not be so stupid looking if he quit making those monkey faces.
kerry beat bush on TV, he beat him on audio, and he beat him on paper.
all the studdering, smirking, scowling, and pauses only heightened bush's idiotic appearence. but the bottom line is bush avoided the important questions by repeating tired old rhetoric, and even still manages to make the saddam/osama mix up, and im not talking about my quote. when asked about hussein and the war in iraq, bush brought up 911. he openly admits now that there was NO ties whatsoever between saddam and al queda...so what the hell kind of answer was that?
bush was wearing his "issue-proof vest" and it was quite obvious.
Raventheonly, If Bush would have destroyed Kerry in the debate would you still be saying that it means nothing and that debates on TV really aren't debates? Or would you be gloating what a good job Bush did?
Hmmm
You say that you would crush either of the so called debaters is that to say that you don't agree with what Bush had to say? Or just the way he presented it?
I have to conceed that what we saw on TV was not a good old fashioned debate but each party had a fair chance to defend his position and bring up the points that he wanted to bring up. They each got their tag lines out. Not just people with Rose colored glasses are saying that Kerry did a much better job getting his thoughts across. The polls I saw said 3/4 of the people surveyed said Kerry won. Bush didn't sound convincing or in control of himself. I dare say he was flustered and out of control towards the end.
Of course Polls and Debates will not matter after Nov 2. One group will be licking their wounds and the other will be claiming complete victory. The fact of the matter is with any election this close the winner does not have a mandate to do anything. I am not sure I would want to be in either position knowing that almost half of the people voted against you...
may favorite quote of thursday night:
JIM LEHRER: Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?
DUBYA: I would hope I'd never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. I never wanted to commit troops. I never -- when I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, I never dreamt I'd be doing that. But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and -- ah -- I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.
...the enemy attacked us!?!?!? he STILL lies after he admitted his "error"
Originally posted by PVS
well, you are correct in that TV puts a huge twist on a debate.
would clinton have won without TV? would JFK have won?
they looked handome, cool, and relaxed while their opponents, nixon and bush senior, looked like nervous sweaty old men.but this debate is different. image does not matter. in fact, i would say kerry was beaten faaar more severely with the ugly stick than bush...who might not be so stupid looking if he quit making those monkey faces.
kerry beat bush on TV, he beat him on audio, and he beat him on paper.
all the studdering, smirking, scowling, and pauses only heightened bush's idiotic appearence. but the bottom line is bush avoided the important questions by repeating tired old rhetoric, and even still manages to make the saddam/osama mix up, and im not talking about my quote. when asked about hussein and the war in iraq, bush brought up 911. he openly admits now that there was NO ties whatsoever between saddam and al queda...so what the hell kind of answer was that?bush was wearing his "issue-proof vest" and it was quite obvious.
Sorry for the late response.... 😖 my internet got disconnected for like a week and i barely remember what posts i had in which place 😖
Yes Kerry won. 😄 i admitt he won 😄 and there are no buts..... 😛
Seriously though image should not what we are looking for in a president. just because a person makes a mistake or stutters doesn't mean that he should be president. In actuallity Bush Senior originally Slaughtered Dukakas in his debates because he acted and spoke like a normal person... and had a normal human response to questions.... "oh Burny" is the most memorable quote from that debate 😛 😄
😂 yes he has issues crossed...but one must not assume that that is not the absolute truth... perhaps his intel people did say there was a connection and his selective memory it seems keeps bringing up confidential information. ... reallly no one has as much information and assets as the president has. 😬
Originally posted by Zanthor
Raventheonly, If Bush would have destroyed Kerry in the debate would you still be saying that it means nothing and that debates on TV really aren't debates? Or would you be gloating what a good job Bush did?
HmmmYou say that you would crush either of the so called debaters is that to say that you don't agree with what Bush had to say? Or just the way he presented it?
I have to conceed that what we saw on TV was not a good old fashioned debate but each party had a fair chance to defend his position and bring up the points that he wanted to bring up. They each got their tag lines out. Not just people with Rose colored glasses are saying that Kerry did a much better job getting his thoughts across. The polls I saw said 3/4 of the people surveyed said Kerry won. Bush didn't sound convincing or in control of himself. I dare say he was flustered and out of control towards the end.
Of course Polls and Debates will not matter after Nov 2. One group will be licking their wounds and the other will be claiming complete victory. The fact of the matter is with any election this close the winner does not have a mandate to do anything. I am not sure I would want to be in either position knowing that almost half of the people voted against you...
If Bush had won it doesn't matter 😂 these are a mockery of true debates and pathetic.... what kind of debate occurs without notes? 😂 my text book right next to me here states that each party has access to notes and may use them at given points between breaks. The candidates do not even directly address each other in these "debates" 😂
AND for the record i think both suck, along with around 100% of the politicians today.... 😬 the only reason i support Bush in anything is because i hate Kerry's particular guts so much... AND i think that according to cercumstances of the past four years Bush has done a decent job.
"If Bush had won it doesn't matter these are a mockery of true debates and pathetic.... what kind of debate occurs without notes? my text book right next to me here states that each party has access to notes and may use them at given points between breaks. The candidates do not even directly address each other in these "debates" "
They had some notes, if you looked at Kerry when Bush was talkign you could see him writing on these notes.
Originally posted by BackFire
"If Bush had won it doesn't matter these are a mockery of true debates and pathetic.... what kind of debate occurs without notes? my text book right next to me here states that each party has access to notes and may use them at given points between breaks. The candidates do not even directly address each other in these "debates" "They had some notes, if you looked at Kerry when Bush was talkign you could see him writing on these notes.
yes during the pres debate you can create and note points during the debate, but you can't bring notes into the debate already created 😛