My Take on the Debate

[Razorback]

Bush smirked, misspoke, stuttered, stammered, mumbled, stumbled, tripped over and raped the English language in this first presidential debate and yet the "moron" from Texas did no worse than the great orator from Massachusetts. Instead of doing what some expected, Senator John Kerry repeatedly set himself up for come-back after come-back after come-back.

I am sure the Kerry camp is going to spin this thing right now, and his supporters too, but America saw it and Kerry was equaled on live TV in front of millions of voters.

It's over, Johnny, it's over... at best this debate was a tie and a tie is not what John Kerry needed. At least he made a good closing statement, but it was too little too late.

Vote Hillary Clinton in 2008!

[TomHarrington]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I am sure the Kerry camp is going to spin this thing right now, and his supporters too, but America saw it and Kerry was equaled on live TV in front of millions of voters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like the Bush camp beat the Dems to the spin already. And how do you know what America saw? What are you, Charles Xavier all of the sudden?

[Mighty_Wingman]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I am sure the Kerry camp is going to spin this thing right now, and his supporters too, but America saw it and Kerry was equaled on live TV in front of millions of voters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must've been watching a different debate than one you saw.

Talk about spin, eh ?
No Need to spin, Bob. Bush wasn't tripping over the English language, he was choking on the very pedestals of his own campiagn promises, because even he doesn't believe them anymore, and without conviction just repeated the same three or four sentences for most of the forty-five minutes he was speaking.

My favorite gem of the debate ?
Is my new sig.

[ZyronDrazil]

Hey. NO speaking ill about Professor X.

[Affleckie]

I like your take very much. No wait, I love your take.

[ZyronDrazil]

How come Bush is the only one in office, or running for office who can't keep a good poker face? Or be confident in what he says?

[Affleckie]

How was he not confident?

He seems to be the only one out of the two debating that can still stand behind everything he's done.

[marksiwel]

vote Professor X in 2008 or he will melt your mind.

I found the debate to be...a debate. Nothing really new, too much mention of North Keora, I did like that they brought up some stuff going on outside of Iraq, Iran, Keora.

[Dr3vil]

Ah, I suppose ignorance is bliss, but never the less.

Even FOX NEWS said the "tied turned toward Kerry in the last 2 thirds of the debate." One even said Bush's best chance was that people stopped watching after 30 minutes, I'd have to concur.

I thought Kerry was fairly effective clarifying his voting record to the people, which was a nice surprise. He said he voted for authorization on the basis of Bush's promise to build a coalition and go to war as a last resort. Why in the hell he would have believed him is another question, but that was the message sent and, like many, Bush failed to question it. Nevertheless, course subjective analysis is meaningless until we some poll numbers.

Fox commentators also criticized that he didn't say 9/11 enough. I love biased news, it's heartwarming to know his supporters actually encourage him defiling the three thousand dead because the state of psychological fear induced leads people to support incumbancy.

I actually heard of a study, on the question "Who do you want for president?", pollees were split, and on "Think of 9/11. Who do want to be president?" Bush had a big advantage. Ethics aside, its a very efficient tactic.

[ZyronDrazil]

Yea but he's no Mister Mister (when you get pissed, you get missed).

You can tell he's not confident by the way he delivers his speeches. The times that he doesn't stutter, and repeat the same fraze a million times, is when he's surrounded by everyone who's supporting him. He struggles with his speech, and everything he says when he's speaking infront of viewers who could make or break him. Listen to what he says when he talks to those already voting for him and supporting him, as oppose to those who are voting against him or could be either way. He carries a speech impediment, he sweats, he blinks, and he shakes.

I pick up on these things, because alls I have to do is look at his eyes.

I'm not saying Kerry is going to make a better president.But at least he can face ihs opponents without freaking out basically.

[TomHarrington]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Hey. NO speaking ill about Professor X.

[/ QUOTE ]

No disrespect to X intended. RB saw the debate, formed opinions, and then declared them as reality for rest of the country. I was thinking of a Jimmy the Greek comparison, but Charles won out.

[ZyronDrazil]

Ah, I. C..... Is there another skywalker? besides... Nader? (Nader/Vader, do we really want him as our third choice?)

[Razorback]

Of course my post was spin. That was the point. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

It doesn't much matter which side did better as the spin masters end up deciding. The two of them could stand there and never answer a single question and at the end the spin masters would run out and say "We hit a homerun!"

I only watched a small portion of the debate, as my Yankees were battling the Twins, but what I saw didn't impress me one way or the other. We will see just how much this helps Kerry (if he actually won). Those on the right will think Bush did a great job and those on the left will say Kerry won.

Is it any surprise?

[Mighty_Wingman]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were being facetious. /forums/images/icons/confused.gif
I guess I'm running a little slow today ( throw whatever insults you want there )

You really should find a way to watch the debate in it's entirety. I was very impressed with it's results.

[Razorback]

Next I should tell you when I wrote a majority of that first post. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

By the way, CNN polls show that a majority of people think that Kerry won but that Bush remains the person those polled feel would make the best CINC.

[marksiwel]

How are you supposed to prove that either person won? Its not like they proved each other wrong, they mostly just disagreed.

[Mighty_Wingman]

The proof will visible to all on Nov. 2nd, about midnight EST .

[Razorback]

Even if they did prove the other wrong would it make any difference? Would anyone on either side give in? Ten years ago a debate meant something. Now, unless one guy destroys the other guy, it means very little.

Kerry still has time to change some minds but unfortunately after the first debate viewership drops dramatically.

[Mighty_Wingman]

I would say, if there was any "destruction". Bush mostly did it to himself . He seemed unprepared and unsure , I didn't see a smirk or a swagger at all, he looked too worried. This was not the same debater we saw four ago. The stuttering and stammering you metioned were present. No doubt, he's been dealing with alot of stress. There were a couple sequences where he came across as strong and confident. But those were short. He kept repeating things that Kerry had already addressed and showed no ability to think on his feet or make adjustments in his strategy.

Conversely, Kerry tripped only twice that I counted, answered his questions quickly and decisively.He did much better job of making his points. And displayed ( many more of ) the qualities I would like to see in a leader of the free world.

[Rico]

I think it was a tie.

Bush stuttered and said "uh" about a hundred times and Kerry grimmaced as Bush brought up good points. I noticed that Kerry avoided a lot of the questions and simply started talking about topics he wanted to bring up instead of focusing on what the debate leader brought up.

Very bad ettiquette of him to continue debating a past question after the leader movedo n to another topic, I think it was Iran that he wanted to talk more about? Bad debating on his part right there.

At least Bush provided some answers, Kerry just seemed to run circles around most questions.

One thing I do think Bush did wrong was bring up the flip-flopping too much into it. I think it was around 4 or 5 of his rebuttals where he just kept hammering the issue of Kerry's flip-flopping when he could have instead countered his claims.

I want to hear more about South America tomorrow, I'm interested in knowing where each of them stands on the Veneuelan situation. I think Kerry talked about it some, but I missed it.

[Mighty_Wingman]

Mr.Bush continued reitterating the claim that the world is a safer place because of his leadership. Even though tonight you could see in his eyes he knows that this is not true. The world has become a far more dangerous place under his watch.

Three bombings planned inside the continental U.S. by Al Queda, were thwarted in the latter days of the Clinton administration . And they did it without the " law enforcement benifits of the Patriot act." It took 9-11 for Bush to start paying attention to Al Queda. Despite warnings from national security and those within his own cabinet. Shortly after 9-11, for no discernable reason , he decided to stop paying attention to them again, so he could focus on Iraq.

The occupation in Iraq has bred at least twice the number of terrorists it's killed or captured. To borrow a line from a person wiser than myself. " We're making enemies faster than we can kill them."

The man most responsible for 9-11 remains at large. This sends a clear message to the terrorists as well. The message is : You can get away with it. Allah will protect you from America.

The middle east , historically, has never been stable or peaceful. To spend American lives and dollars to that end is fruitless. It's an investment we will never see a return on. Unless you consider blood to be a dividend.

W. lacks qualities his father had in spades. Like prudence and providence. America will be suffering his lack of fortitude for decades to come, after another four years, we might never recover.

Mr. Bush is using fear, claiming that he is the only one that can protect you. He claims the world is/will be a safer place as long he's in charge. Yet with the facts of the last four years out in the open ,that claim seems pretty flimsy, even spherious. He needs a new leg to stand on.

Thank you , and Goodnight.

[Matt1]

I've already examined both men's policies and made up my mind, so I went into this debate mostly to study each of their performances.

What struck me was how quickly Bush seemed to lose his composure in the face of Kerry's comments, and his apparent inability to think quickly on his feet. Not exactly the image a Commander-in-Chief would want to be projecting in a time of war.

Kerry on the other hand, appeared confident and was courteous throughout. Also, astonishingly, he kept his answers both succinct and clear. He was the one who appeared strong and resolute.

Of course, that's just my unbiased, objective opinion. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Matt1]

Not to mention Kerry appeared more intelligent, but that was a given going in. What counts though is that he did it without appearing condescending, something Gore failed to do in 2000. I think that's why Bush's folksy charm and "plain-speaking" (re: inarticulate) style won out last time around.

[cberquist]

"Mr. Bush is using fear, claiming that he is the only one that can protect you. He claims the world is/will be a safer place as long he's in charge. Yet with the facts of the last four years out in the open ,that claim seems pretty flimsy, even spherious."

Using fear to attain your goals.. That kinda sounds like the tactics of a terrorist to me.

[TomHarrington]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The two of them could stand there and never answer a single question and at the end the spin masters would run out and say "We hit a homerun!"


[/ QUOTE ]

"I was really pleased ... we were all really nervous going into this debate and I thought that John Kerry knocked it out of the ballpark," Richards said. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Threadkiller]

Ultimately, I feel that I won this particular debate. I owe this victory to the fact that I didn't watch even one second of it but was instead doing something more worthwhile with my time. Like cleaning my fingernails or something.

[Droogan_Leader]

For what it's worth (for anybody who hasn't already made up his/her mind), I didn't watch the debate, because I don't really care who is a better rhetorician, who has better hair, or who stutters more.

A long time ago I saw Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and that profoundly affected my view of Washington, politicians, and what kind of qualities I value in a leader. I don't mind the leader of the free world being suave, but it's not a necessity, for sure. The fact that people make fun of W for being not so well-spoken, plus the fact that he sticks by his guns (although things don't always go according to plan, and no one can keep 100% of their promises 100% of the time), makes me want to vote for him. George Washington was ridiculed for lacking charisma in his public speaking, and it seems like W has a lot in common with him, if you look into it. Both went through tough war-time situations against foes who seemed overwhelming, and both had the brass to call the make-or-break decisions.

What really matters to me, a Regular Joe, is who MOST embodies how I feel about the country and the world, who can make tough decisions, and who can I MOST trust? I think it's Bush. When it comes down to that, who you can trust the most, you don't want Slick Willie calming your fears--suave sophistication will help you lie your way out of bad situations, but it won't win the kind of war we're in, help the economy grow, or preserve the moral fabric of the nation.

So, spin away, talking heads, spin away, cool people of the Shoot, but my die is cast.

[Razorback]

If Kerry did as well as his supporters say he did then I guess he will go up in the polls by a good 10%.

[karmattack]

Then he probably didn't do as well as his supporters claim. People are fired up and he did really well with the debate. Bush had his finer points too. I'm not going to get into the specifics, at least not yet. If there was a victor, I think it was clearly Kerry. I don't see this changing many minds though.

I have to say I was disappointed that they mostly debated ethics, character and semantics and leaving it up to the viewers to visit www.yourchosenpartisanleader.com (http://www.yourchosenpartisanleader.com) to hear their respective plans. There were points made and positions clarified, which was good and effective, but shouldn't have been the whole debate.

[Asteban]

<font color="green"> I would like to start of with saying, that I don't like either canidate, but that doesn't matter because I'm not old enough to vote. I would still like to add a little input to this.

I had to watch the debates for my U.S. History homework. For most of the time I just spaced off and watched the lights change color(ADD attack). What I did notice though was that, yes, Bush does stutter, he pauses and he sometimes makes fool of himself with his speech abilities, but who wouldn't make a fool of themselves with John Kerry right next to them. He's composes himself VERY well. Personally though, I think he uses too much rhetoric. He speaks well, and he makes everything he says sound very nice, but I just see it as pure BS rhetoric. Although, I hate what Bush has done to the economy and the school system(no child left behind is pure bullshit, and now my school might have to cut programs due to lack of fundage), I also thing Kerry is a flake. First of all there is no way he will EVER get rid of all nuclear weapons, especially in 4 years. He says 4 years, I say 4 decades if we're lucky. Then he goes on to say, that he wants troops out of Iraq, and we shouldn't be worrying about Iraq (blah blah blah anti war anti war anti war) then he goes on to say that he wants to take care of North Korea. How does he suppose he'll go about getting rid of their WMD's, asking nicely?

I guess, I'm a little on the pro war side, but I'm also on the pro economy side, and you can't have both. Which is unfortunate. And when I say pro war, I don't mean that I WANT the troops there, I don't think its good that people are dying, but I think that it's for the good of our nation and theirs. The people who are over there are true heroes. When they enlisted they knew that they would have to go over seas at some point, some of them knew exactly what they were getting into, and they did it anyway to fight for our country, and the freedom of the Iraqi's.

I went way over my normal political boundries. But I'm done. Criticize as you wish. I know that I may have missed a few important details that have made me an idiot. </font color>

[Matt1]

You sound like Bush's key constituency. The voter who makes up their mind based on their "feelings."

Anyhoo, thought ya'll might be interested in this new piece from the ubiquitous factcheck.org. And since some of you keep saying the same distortions over and over again, I get the feeling no one ever actually clicks on the links. So, I copied and pasted it.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Distortions and Misstatements At First Presidential Debate
Bush and Kerry both have problems with the facts at their meeting in Coral Gables

October 1, 2004
Modified: October 1, 2004

Summary

In the first of three scheduled debates between Bush and Kerry both candidates sometimes departed from the facts.

Bush glossed over significant problems with US reconstruction efforts in Iraq when he claimed that the US is "spending money" and that 100,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained. And Kerry overstated the case when he said Bush allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora by "outsourcing" fighting to Afghans.

Bush misquoted Kerry, distorting his position on withdrawing troops from Iraq. And Kerry said the Iraq war has cost $200 billion, when the cost so far is actually just over $120 billion.


Analysis

Bush gave a rosy picture of progress in Iraq, glossing over significant problems with reconstruction contracts and training of Iraqi security forces.

Bush's "Reconstruction" &amp; "100,000 trained now"

Bush cited as a sign of progress in Iraq that the US is "spending reconstruction money," when in fact the slow pace of spending has become a major problem for US officials.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage testified to a House Appropriations subcommittee Sept. 24 that only $1.2 billion in reconstruction money had actually been spent so far , out of the total of $18 billion that was appropriated last December in "emergency" funds for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush also said "100,000 troops" and other Iraqi security personnel have been trained to date. That's the official figure, but the President failed to mention that many trainees have received nothing more than a three-week course in police procedures -- what Armitage referred to as "shake-and-bake" forces.

Only 8,000 of the total are police who have received a full eight-week course of training, Armitage told the House:

Armitage: It's 100,000 total security forces, and I don't want anyone to make the mistake that security force equals soldier -- could be policemen, and it could be the eight-week trained policemen, of which there are a little over 8,000, or it could be what I refer to as the shake-and-bake three-week police force, which are previous policemen who are now given a three-weeks course. So it's a mixed bag , but there are about 100,000 total security forces.

Tora Bora "Outsourcing"

Kerry said U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape in 2001 during the battle at Tora Bora in Afghanistan because the administration "outsourced" fighting to Afghan "warlords." Actually, it's never been clear whether bin Laden actually was at Tora Bora.

It is true that military leaders strongly suspected bin Laden was there, and it is also true that the Pentagon relied heavily on Afghan forces to take on much of the fighting at Tora Bora in an effort to reduce US casualties. But Kerry overstates the case by stating flatly that "we had him surrounded."

Bush's False Quote

The President misquoted Kerry's position on how quickly troops might be withdrawn from Iraq. Bush claimed Kerry once said "I'll have them out of there in six months," which is false. Kerry complained, "he's misled us again."

What Kerry actually said was that he believed he could "significantly reduce" US troop levels in Iraq within six months of taking office -- not at all the same thing as having all troops "out of there."

Kerry's remark was on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" Aug 6, in an interview with Steve Inskeep:

Kerry: I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan. I believe we can.

Q: Within a year from right now?

Kerry: I believe we can. Absolutely we can.

Q: A year from August.

Kerry: I believe we can. Absolutely we can reduce the numbers. You bet.

Kerry's $200 Billion Exaggeration

Kerry continued to refer to "the cost" of the Iraq war as $200 billion, when it fact the cost to date is just over $120 billion, according to budget officials. Kerry is counting money that has been appropriated to be spent in the fiscal year that started Friday, Oct. 1. Much of the money Kerry counts has not even been requested formally by the Bush administration, and is only an estimate of what will be sought sometime in the coming year, to be spent later. We've pointed this out before in detail.

Al Qaeda

The President said twice that "75 percent" of al Qaeda leaders have been "brought to justice." But as The Associated Press reported Oct. 1, Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of bin Laden's network at the time of the September 11 attacks -- not those who are running the terrorist organization today. The AP also reported that the CIA said earlier in the year two-thirds of those leaders are gone; at his acceptance speech in September, Bush increased his count to three-fourths based on unreleased intelligence data.

Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted "conservative" intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.

Other Factual Stumbles

Bush said that 10 million people had registered to vote in the coming presidential election in Afghanistan, which he called a "phenomenal statistic." But that's a disputed figure. Human Rights Watch issued a report Sept. 29 citing "widespread multiple registration of voters." It said the 10 million figure is probably inflated.

Bush said he has increased spending on curbing nuclear proliferation by "about 35 percent" since he took office. But The Washington Post reported Oct. 1 that Bush proposed a 13 percent cut in his first budget as President -- about $116 million. Much of the increases since then have been added by Congress, the Post reported.

The Post also said Kerry misspoke when he asserted that Bush is spending "hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons" when in fact the budget for research on that weapon is less that $35 million. The Post said the administration has set aside nearly $500 million for future budgets -- but that's contingent on Congress approving production of such a weapon.

The AP noted that Kerry misspoke when he said "we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the (Iraq) border every single day, and they're blowing people up." Kerry meant terrorists were crossing the border, not nuclear weapons.

The AP also caught Kerry's mistake when he referred to looking at KGB records in Treblinka Square in a visit to Russia. Treblinka was a Nazi death camp. Kerry meant Lubyanka Square.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Matt1]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
...but who wouldn't make a fool of themselves with John Kerry right next to them.

[/ QUOTE ]
One would hope the President of the United States. But I guess that's only if we lived in a perfect world.

Also, yeah, you got a lot of stuff wrong.

[jjcourtright]

As much as I don't think that you can "win" a debate in the format used last night, I think Kerry at least had the upper-hand for most of the night.

Kerry was more composed, and even more succint at times (surprisingly).

As was expected, both candidates just repeated what they have been saying for the past 8 months. The difference that I saw was that Kerry said different things throughout the debate. Bush kept trying to hammer home the same point over and over. The world is safer without Sadaam. The world is safer without Sadaam. The world is safer without Sadaam. 75% of Al-Qaeda leaders have been killed or captured. 75% of Al-Qaeda leaders have been killed or captured. You can't send mixed messages to our troops. You can't send mixed messages to our troops. You can't send mixed messages to our allies. You can't send mixed messages to our allies. The repitition made Bush seem less prepared than Kerry.

This repitition I thought was rather revealing of Bush. Especially the "mixed messages" bits. It for the first time occurred to me last night that maybe he is so worried about sending these "mixed messages" that he won't make the changes that many people feel need to be made. Maybe I'm analyzing too much.

My favorite part of the night was replayed on The Daily Show: Lehrer: Mr. President you have 90 seconds.
Bush: I, I, I, I, I,................................................ ................

The weirdest thing that I saw last night was Laura Bush's creepy wave. Did anybody else catch that? She had her hand in "the claw" position and was waving with that. Weird stuff.

To Asteban: Kerry did not say that he would get rid of all nuclear weapons in four years! He said that he would get all of Russia's nuclear stores contained within four years. An infinetly huge difference there.

Did anybody else turn the debate into a drinking game? We tried, but "Al-Qaeda", "bin-Laden", and "Sadaam" were said far too many times to keep up.

[DarthMaulRat]

My 2 cents are that the debates didn't really do what they are intended to do, swing the undecided voters. Democrats thought Kerry made Bush look like a fool in the debates, and Republicans thought that Bush ousted Kerry rather well. In reality, both did good and bad. Bush kept on tip-toeing around the questions he didn't want to answer, and Kerry fell on his old routine of bringing up his service in Vietnam. Neither seemed particularly charasmatic the whole night, which is not important to me but is to Johnny Q. Dumbass (I have this theory where a guy whose last name is 'Voterman' would probably sweep elections, maybe not for President but for Congressman or Senator).

Anyway, for what is being considered one of the most important elections in US history, the debate was pretty uneventful.

[karmattack]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Especially the "mixed messages" bits.

[/ QUOTE ] I felt this a LOT. I was getting so frustrated that Kerry fully explained himself, what, 4 times? He voted to invade when the president said it was a last resort and there would be a plan for peace. The president rushed it, so Kerry calls it a mistake. Yeah, what a wavering, mixed up, flip-flopper.

But Bush would make the comment again. Kerry would explain that again. 4 times.

Best part is. Bush made the accusation again today. Talk about steadfast! You can't even get through to this guy.

[DangerSeeker]

I watched it alone, so no drinking game. Still, thanks to glorious technology I have a DVD of the event, so it can be watched for said purpose whenever I need a good night of inebriation.

[TomHarrington]

Did you ever wonder what it is those guys are always writing up there on the podium? Well, it seems as though Bush left his notes behind and someone from the press got a hold of them.

http://img4.exs.cx/img4/4425/bushnotes.jpg

[Razorback]

Pretty funny... but wasn't it Kerry who was taking notes?

[DarthMaulRat]

That pic gave me a long, hard laugh. Last night I was chatting with my roommates about what they were really writing down all night. My guess was that they were just trying to look smart, the same way most news anchors are pretending to write something as they first come on camera (something Jon Stewart always spoofs, which I truly appreciated after I found myself doing the same thing on school news programs)

[Mighty_Wingman]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
So, spin away, talking heads, spin away, cool people of the Shoot, but my die is cast.

[/ QUOTE ]

And dude, I respect that about you.

Maybe my problem is that I grew up around too many people like Bush. Now, don't get me wrong . It's cool to go over to their house , ride four wheelers and shoot things. I just don't want him leading our country.

[DarthMaulRat]

Bush was also taking notes. I noticed because it never occured to me that our stuttering president is actually familiar with a real debate structure.

[Rico]

If you've ever debated you'd know it's a good idea to take notes while the other is speaking so as to jot down their main arguments so that you can later refute their claims.

Edit:

I think Bush actually debated better than Kerry as far as technicalities go. Kerry did a HUGE no-no when he decided to comment on the last question after Lehr decided to move on and ask him another question. The whole point of the debate structure is to give both sides an equal amount of time to argue and refute points, Kerry tried to squeeze the last shot in like he always does.

If the debates had been judged, Bush would have won just for that.

[Dave]

Yeah, hard to believe that a guy who went to 2 Ivy League schools would know the debate format. (i'm taking your word that that is part of the format, because at my alma mater, debating is something you do with your fishing pole.)

[DarthMaulRat]

I was on a debate team for awhile, and it's near impossible to create effective rebuttals entirely in your head. You need to pick topics during speeches that you know you can argue against and jot them down. Otherwise you'll have to ask the speaker to repeat himself and you'll look like you weren't listening.

[Dave]

i'm sorry, could you repeat that?

[DarthMaulRat]

Embarassingly enough, I just speed-read Rico's reply and didn't even notice that my reply is basically a repeat of what he said. That noted, I did lose the majority of my debates, usually to people who took the competitions seriously (I still claim that I can lose any debate and win any argument).

[Razorback]

I was one of only three people in my entire debate class to get an A. Lots of people failed the class... the professor is the type of guy who tells you at the beginning of the first class "this class may not mean much to you now, but it will when you fail it. So you had better take it seriously."

The class was six hours a week and we worked EVERY SECOND OF IT. He would allow for us to take breaks but he often expected us to work right through them. Everyone in the class was expected to get up in front of the class during every session and give one speech; do one emotion (mind you, he also ran an acting company); participate in at least one successful charade (meaning, you only got credit if you could express, without words, whatever it is that you picked out of a hat); and completed one exercise with a partner (usually something like doing your ABC's while trading off a letter with your partner while moving your hands in different patterns).

This was the easy stuff... people truly hated him. I had an easier time than most probably because I had taken drama classes and was able to put myself into character whenever he demanded it (while others cried and ran out of the class, which happened at least a dozen times).

[Gheorghe_Zamfir]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Originally posted by Razorback
Bush smirked, misspoke, stuttered, stammered, mumbled, stumbled, tripped over and raped the English language in this first presidential debate and yet the "moron" from Texas did no worse than the great orator from Massachusetts.

[/ QUOTE ]

This worked four years ago, but I'm surprised to still hear it, and not simply on here. Four years ago when he was a governor running against the former Vice President you could get away with saying Bush did well just by the standard that he didn't go up there and wet himself, but now that he's President I don't know how much longer people can really expect to justify him by pointing out how little we should really expect of him.

[DarthMaulRat]

Wow. I have a feeling that's what I was up against at most debates. The Debate Team I was in was a club, and constant training wasn't high on my list of priorities.

[Razorback]

You are obviously a Kerry supporter. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Mighty_Wingman]

You say that like it's a bad thing. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

Anyway, since I know everyones' hankering to hear my opinion again. I feel the debate could best be summed up by the looks on the candidates faces while it proceeded.

The look on Kerrys' face was like : Who's yo daddy ?
The look on Bushs' face was like : Hey ! He took my bike !

[Razorback]

The look on Kerry's face was like: "I can't believe people are actually supporting me."

The look on Bush's face was like: "I can't.... belie-ve... people are... axual-ee... supp... flip-flopper!"

[Mighty_Wingman]

Okay, we'll try again.

Bush : I wish I was back in my tree with a bananna .
Kerry : Why does townfolk hate Frankenstien ?

[Razorback]

That was better.

By the way... your sig is wrong. He never finished the sentence, so you are misleading people by quoting him that way. He said "maxed m..." and then corrected himself.

[DarthMaulRat]

Speaking of the Munsters, its pretty aparent that Kerry resembles Herman, but did anyone ever notice that GW actually looks a little like Grandpa Munster?
http://www.saneasylum.com/news/archives/grandpa_munster.gif http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/yearinreview/field.reports/politics/link.george.w.jpg

[Mighty_Wingman]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
By the way... your sig is wrong. He never finished the sentence,

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have video of the debate, so I guess I'll have to take your word for it. But if you wanna get semantical, the villian sometimes knows he's a villian and wouldn't have it any other way. So your sig could be misleading as well. And you wouldn't wanna mislead people about villians, would you ?

[Razorback]

Sometimes I wonder about you... your sig is a quote, mine is a saying. You are misquoting the man.

[Matt1]

Another nice article (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/9819577.htm) fact checking the debate.

[Razorback]

That is not an article, it is an editorial.