The Presidential Debate: Your opinions.

[fire2ash]

Today's presidential debates have just ended, I want to know what you guys think. Honestly, I have never felt as sorry for Bush as I did today. You can tell that people told him what to say and how to respond as well as memorizing and rehearsing things over and over. Every debator does, clearly, but Kerry actually has the ability to debate. I did admire Bush's ability to agree with kerry and be somewhat humble. I felt sorry for Bush, he couldn't keep up and every single rebuttal to Kerry's was filled with misleading and random answers. Not many people like Kerry, but tonight I saw that Kerry is a little bit more articulate and intellectual as well as a man who plans things out, instead of jumping brashly into things because the people around him tell him to do so. I swear, Bush must have like 100 guys every day who tell him what to say and what to do every single day.

Anyways there is alot more to say, if there is already a topic on this inform me and I will delete.

I've heard people's argument against Kerry and voting against him as this "I can't stand to look at him for 4 years." Honestly, I think thats pretty immature and I have actually heard MANY grown adults say this and I am quite dissapointed. Nobody really likes either one, but as many of us know, Bush is an idiot. I am also tired of these "Experts" that comment on political situations and only tell half the truth in favor of whomever or whatever. Kerry does seem to bash Bush alot, and Bush can't find any real way to get back at Kerry, thats why I felt sorry for him.

[Kokaku]

I have very little experience partaking or watching organized debates so my opinions on some issues might be well off. Over all, I think Kerry won, however it’s not as though it was a really clear victory. Bush did a lot better then I thought he was going to, and I only really noticed one sentence where he used the word several times. He did have quite a number of pauses and ‘ums’ and Kerry had a few. Aside from those very minor facts, I think Bush and Kerry did a good job issue wise. They both passed themselves off as being more the competent enough to run this country. What makes Kerry the winner in my mind is that he reiterated issues less then Bush. It just seemed like Bush kept harping on the flip flop issue what I thought we’d be able to get over with by now.

So, more later, let me know what you though, it was definitely and interesting debate and each side had their good and bad points. In the meantime I’ll be looking forward to the Daily Show tonight.

I remember at the start of one question, he was asked if Kerry would do a worse job defending the country if he won Nov 2nd, and he started off by saying that won't happen (as in he'll be the one to win).

[fire2ash]

Yeah Kerry's only flaw was his overconfidence and repeated bashing of Bush, made him look like an asshole sometimes. But debate wise, its pretty clear Bush lost. Most of Bush's replies weren't even direct replies to what Kerry had completely made him look like an idiot about. I also got tired QUICK of Bush's same jargon over and over "We have to be stead fast, resolute, certain, valley of life, American people, yaddda yadda yadda." Bush sometimes had a good point of two, but immediately lost it when he started talking about random things that had nothing to do with the topics. Also his ignorance on Nuclear Proliferation was quite amusing

Also, when Kerry would talk about Russia or Africa and how things needed to be changed etc. Bush's reply was immediately something about the war on Iraq, half the time he talked about "terrorism" and how he had to fight the war against other countries to insure liberty. Since when is brashly fighitng other countries going to ensure the liberty of others? Do we really want another (exaggeration) vietnam?

[Kokaku]

I don’t think either of them came off as an asshole. The both made shots at each other and that was bound to happen.

Yeah, for a debate about foreign policy I thought Kerry did a lot better job of hitting on other international issues.

[Patchingko]

As an independant voter, it was very important to me to watch this and get a feeling for John Kerry, especially. It would have taken a lot for Bush to get my vote, but John Kerry had done nothing to get it either... until tonight.

John Kerry may have earned my vote tonight. I'm going to leave the jury out until I see the rest of the debates, but he basically seems to agree with me on the foreign policy issues.

Finally John Kerry gave the people an idea of where he stands on the issues of foreign policy, which I think all of us have been kind of up in the air wondering about, leaving many other liberal-minded independants like myself questioning whether he'll be a wise choice.

That said, Bush was on the defensive for a very long time up there, and Kerry didn't back down when he was attacked, which made it starkly obvious that Bush doesn't have any new ideas to solve the problems that we are facing right now. How will he fix Iraq? Stay the course. How will he catch Osama? Stay the course. What about North Korea and its recently announced nukes? Stay the course. To me, it's blatantly obvious that the course is headed in the wrong direction... what more evidence than nukes in North Korea do you need? I think Kerry really slammed Bush because of that, and often times he didn't even dignify the president with a response because he was so self-defeting.

Both slipped around the harder criticisms, as expected, but it seemed to me like Kerry had legitimate responses to some of them, whereas Bush just kept plugging "stay the course" endlessly.

I think Bush made a "collosal error" by stressing "stay the course" so much because many independant voters are displeased with the state of the Union and want to know how the candidates will change things for the better. Most of the instant polls are saying Kerry won, and I think that is the reason--Bush didn't bring anything to the table that will sway the independants, while Kerry did.

While these debates will do basically nothing to the staunch Republican and Democrat's votes (they'll just arbitrarily say their candidate won), they're very important in deciding how independants will vote, and in a race this tight, that's significant. Bush can't afford to have another bad showing like this, or Kerry may well catch up or surpass him.

We'll see how it goes when it comes to economic and domestic policy issues, which is where many independants think Bush is strongest.

EDIT: It's hilarious to see how the various news websites change after their initial reactions. MSNBC had a huge "COLLOSAL ERROR" - KERRY SLAMS BUSH on their homepage which has only moments later changed to "FACE-OFF ON IRAQ" instead. Hmmm.

[Arashi]

It was embarrassing watching Bush try to defend himself. Same with Kerry, but not as bad. At least I felt like Kerry knows what he wants and how to get it. Bush just seemed very indecisive on his plans and whatnot.

[the 3rd child]

I don't understand what Kerry plans on doing differently than Bush. He realizes that the US fucked up with Iraq. He wants to put in more people to clean up the Iraq situation. He's going to get these people from our allies? Who? The only countries that would matter would be Germany, France, etc and they've already said they're not going to help us. Why would they want to help us, especially after we realize it was a fuck up? I can't imagine the Germans and the French going to their people as saying "we're going to send your kids off to die for reasons we're against."

I don't like Bush, I'm not going to vote for him. I'm going to vote for Kerry, probably for the sole purpose of getting Bush out but I really don't understand what's Kerry is going to do. All he has ever done is point out what Bush has done wrong, he doesn't say how he's going to do things differently. Atleast with Bush, he may be fucking up, but atleast I know what he wants to do.

[Kokaku]

Patchingko - I’m just curious as to how you’re still undecided on who to vote for. You’ve pretty much showed your distaste for Bush.

the 3rd - Don't forget Poland!

[fire2ash]

Yes, Kerry's problem is that he started to change his view a bit and enforce the Iraqi situation a bit. Most people know that Bush's way of handling it was very abrupt and the whole cheney benefit didn't help the administrations credibility. Bush was never really fit to be a commander in Chief in the first place, yet Kerry has been heavily scrutinized since the very beginning. I don't see how Bush could ever truly be "fit" to be a commander in chief, he has never, EVER impressed me in any way. The only thing I liked about him is the "human" quality Bush supporters seem to milk. But if this quality makes him an incompetent Commander in Chief, I don't really see how it is a benefit. Every single thing that I disliked about Bush since the very beginning and the obviousness of using 9/11 to invade Iraq has been around since the beginning of his adminsitration. When Bush brought up the "mixed messages" topic that Kerry tends to have, its funny how Kerry pretty much perfectly rebbuted it. Also that is very hypocritical as pretty much everything Bush has done has a "mixed message." (Edit) Especially how Bush said that war would be last resort, look what happened, how iraqi's were being trained, so far they have only been given weapons, or how we want allies yet denied some major European countries (as someone stated already) an alliance, Bush has never really held any solution to anything IMO (end edit). Whats even funnier though is all the newscasters asking actual members of the administration from each side's campaign and seeing how Biased and half-ass truths they can come up with.

I love Bush's "strategery," hes just so smart

[TO]

im really not surprised that bush got hammered in this debate, which focused on foreign policy, something which IMO the bush administration has failed at (which i find completely insane considering his father, the one time director of the CIA, was a foreign policy genius). Speaking of that, did anyone catch when Kerry totally nailed bush to the wall when he quoted what Bush Sr. said after the gulf war about how they didn't push all the way into baghdad because there was no viable exit strategy? I think that was one of the definining points in the debate because, as evidenced by our current situation there really is no end in sight.

On the other hand, Bush has never been good at these kinds of debates. Even in 2000 I thought Al Gore communicated his arguments far more effectively than Bush did. The problem with gore was that he's a complete fucking robot who had no charisma or personality whatsoever. Bush on the other hand, is more a guy's guy. he's one of those dudes you wouldnt mind having over at your house to watch the game, have a few beers with etc. While Kerry does appear a bit more rigid, he does show off far more personality than Gore ever did. Its obvious that Kerry (given his long history in american politics) has an advantage over Bush in these types of debates, whereas Bush is far more comfortable when he's speaking candidly with the media, without relying on scripted responses, and basically just speaking his mind, as an everyday american.

As someone mentioned earlier, Bush's main point of attack was Kerry's flip flop nature. It wasn't that effective IMO because Kerry admitted that he changed views occasionally, but justified his actions quite well. His point was that when new facts arise, and when new situations come up, it may be neccessary to alter one's course of action accordingly. This seems like common sense, but a main characteristic of Bush is his unwavering support for the decisions he makes (like say, invading a sovereign nation).

even if bush won the debate (which i believe he didn't) my support for him would have dwindled even more, if nothing else than for the fact that he said that it was neccessary that congress renew the patriot act. that really pissed me off because the patriot act is probably one of the most unconstitutional acts that has ever been passed in the history of the US.

Even though I typically despise liberal foreign policy, I think that the Bush administration's FP is so ridiculously far to right, that a little liberal persuasion might be what we need to help rebuild some alliances, save a little money, and then proceed to wipe north korea off the face of the earth.

[fire2ash]

Yeah, but even then Gore still won among its people (popular vote). Bush won because of Florida's strange turn around at the last second. Isn't his brother a high ranking official in Florida? (Governer I think).

[Kokaku]

Hah, yeah. I’m surprised you didn’t know that. Ol' Jeb.

Last I heard that despite a large following in Florida he’s only got a five to seven point lead.

[Gungrave]

STRATEGERY, is what we need to defeat the terrorists!

[fire2ash]

Actually I have known that for a long time, but I wasn't sure on the actual fact as I had never seen a picture or statement from him. But now I am absolutely certain, heh.

STRATEGERY, is what we need to defeat the terrorists!

ROFL. Man oh man, I think I might actually miss Bush if he looses.

[Patchingko]

Patchingko - I’m just curious as to how you’re still undecided on who to vote for. You’ve pretty much showed your distaste for Bush.

the 3rd - Don't forget Poland!

That Poland thing was pitiable.

I remain undecided for a few reasons, but you're right, I very much disagree with Bush on most things and I think he's been a terrible president. My indecision isn't as to whether or not to vote for Bush, but whether or not to vote for Kerry. Living in California, I have that luxury because my state will go to Kerry without a doubt. As I've said before, if I lived in a state that's up for grabs, I'd vote for Kerry to prevent Bush from gaining more electoral votes, especially in light of the fact that he won based on electoral and not popular vote last time.

My problem is that prior to now, Kerry had done nothing to earn my vote because he hadn't really defined his positions and intentions, which he did tonight. I don't buy the majority of the propaganda put forth by either side, so I remain skeptical longer than most, I suppose. It's easy to believe every piece of bullshit peddled by either side about the opposition as an excuse to justify your vote, but that's all it is.

My opinion of Bush is based on what he's done and what he says he'll do, so I know I wouldn't vote for him because he's screwed up at every turn, I think, and his plans are to "stay the course" by doing more of the same. By the same token, I can find out what John Kerry has done, but up until tonight, I wasn't really sure what he says he'll do (in regards to foreign policy at least), so I couldn't in good concience make a decision to vote for him for a reason besides him not being Bush.

[Kage]

Terrorists are not a country, it is a mind set. One cannot defeat mindset with force.

[Magnus]

I'm not informed enough for a serious reply to the discussion here, but I just wanted to chime in with my favourite quote from the night:

Bush: "I just know how this world works!"

[Kokaku]

Terrorists are not a country, it is a mind set. One cannot defeat mindset with force.

A 'group of guys' with a particular mindset.

Patchingko – I see what you’re saying. I know someone who’s planning on voting for a third party candidate just to support third parties. He’s confident in the fact that Kerry is going to win his state (I wish I could be as confident with mine). While I agree that the system would be better with more then just two parties going at it I’m not about to vote for any of them right now. The first reason is of course is that I don’t want Bush to win. Secondly, I hardly know any of them. They seem to get so little media coverage that I’d rather vote for Bush based on personality and integrity over them. It seems sad to say but voting for Cobb or Nader isn’t going to raise their quality. Right now it seems like it’s going to take a strong candidate in one of those parties (and hopefully a weak demo & repub) to shift things around.

[Kage]

I agree that the 2 party systems sux. It is too long entrenched though. Historically has any independent won the presidential seat?

[Doom]

Couldn't catch the actual thing, but I did catch the Daily Show rerun, which sufficed.

[Last One]

LEt me tell you for first hand experience that a multiparty systems sucks, if anytthing it creates more chaos than fix thing (just think about it, instead of the lesser of two evils we could be going for the lesser of three evil ) and a big waste of money (can't remember how much money the goverment itself gives to each party in the US, but a lot is spent in Mexico with all the parties that at the end of the day just want to get some cash).

As for the debate, it felt week for me, from both sides. While its true that we can finally get some of Kerry plans on terrorism other than him saying that the war in Iraq wasn't necesarry (altough he voted in favor of it). We still have to go into detail on how he hopes to accomplish this. I like how he consider that nuclear material been the first priority for him tto take it away from terrorism where a chemical/biological weapons seems much easier and more prone for terrorist to use than nuclear weapons. Not to mention him seem to want to do the same thing on North Korea with what we just went through with Iraq .

As for Bush, didn't expect much from him, we know he is not ment to even talk in public, I think he hold himself on his own up there in the debate, could been more clear on his "staying on course" plans (then again he really wants to point out that any kind of change as big as Iraq are slow). Also he should have talked more freely and stop with the whole "flip floppig" thing. We got it the first time around.

Have a nice day

[Lord Golbez]

You make it sound as if the lesser of three evils is worse. On the contrary, this is clearly wrong, for in the limit of approaching the lesser of infinite evils, we would be dealing with the best possible.

Also, Kerry did not vote in favor of the war in Iraq. There's a difference in what he voted for, but I'm not going t argue it extensively, because I don't like disingenuous politicians (all of them).

[Craddyshack]

"You forgot Poland."

I swear Kerry started laughing when he heard that. I would say Kerryn was the better speaker, looking strictly at his presentation. How about his tan, eh? THAT'S CHARISMATIC. Bush fumbled alot after the first half hour, he had to keep looking down at notes and there were lots of pauses. Anyway, the debate barely matters, everyone has pretty much decided how they're going to vote anyway. Still, this stuff makes for great drinking games.

[Kokaku]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... /KERRY.TMP < A good article which comments on the reality of his 'flip flopping.’

I have a page of Bush flip flops if anyone is interested.

[Vincent]

I never thought that in my life I would ever have fun watching a presidential debate...but this one actually made me laugh at Bush a few times. Theres no question as to who "won" this debate, that's Kerry, he obviously knew what he was doing up there. Bush, to me, looked like a little kid lost in the supermarket. He had no idea what he was talking about, mentioned the same points over and over, evaded the questions(quite well on one or 2), stumbled over the things he finally thought of to say. I expected him to call John Kerry a "doody head" or "poopy pants" any moment but unfortunately it never happened.. Kerry had some weak points as well, I'm sure everyone noticed how he brought up Vietnam and his service (surprise). Though, he was more aggressive than I've seen him so far, which was somewhat of a relief, especially this close to the election.

BTW Anyone else grin when Kerry mentioned Haliburton? I could hear hundreds of nerds across the world screaming "pwnage!".

[Patchingko]

We still have to go into detail on how he hopes to accomplish this.

You should go reread the transcript of the debate--Kerry did quickly go over what his plans are, and also said very clearly that if you want to know it, you should go to his website and educate yourself. His major drive seems to be internationalization of the progress there, something he can achieve that Bush never will because Bush spat in the faces of the international community already. In addition, Bush threw out a number of inflated and untrue facts in regards to how many Iraqi troops are trained and just how well-trained they are, so Kerry's other major drive is getting them trained well to serve the government there. Anyhow, you can read up on it yourself.

I like how he consider that nuclear material been the first priority for him tto take it away from terrorism where a chemical/biological weapons seems much easier and more prone for terrorist to use than nuclear weapons. Not to mention him seem to want to do the same thing on North Korea with what we just went through with Iraq .

Wha? Did you watch the same debate as me? Both of them agreed that nuclear proliferation was the greatest problem facing our country in foreign policy at the moment, and neither of them said anything about wanting to go through the same thing with North Korea that we have in Iraq. Their difference here is that Kerry wants bilateral talks to be reinitiated and wants to go back to the heavy surveilance and US-led control over North Korean nuclear development that we had before Bush became president... which Kerry did a very good job of slamming Bush for, since under his watch, North Korea has managed to creat nuclear weapons.

As for Bush, didn't expect much from him, we know he is not ment to even talk in public, I think he hold himself on his own up there in the debate, could been more clear on his "staying on course" plans (then again he really wants to point out that any kind of change as big as Iraq are slow). Also he should have talked more freely and stop with the whole "flip floppig" thing. We got it the first time around.

I felt like all Bush said was "stay the course," so I'm not sure how he could have been more clear about it. What he could have done was not elaborate on the international crime court, something nobody knows anything about or cares in the least about. He just did a terrible job, missing Kerry's points half the time, or ingoring them to plug "stay the course."

[Vincent]

Here's the transcript of the debate if anyone is interested. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... bate01.DTL

[Helmholz]

I agree that the 2 party systems sux. It is too long entrenched though. Historically has any independent won the presidential seat?

The Republicans won in 1860, and they were independent of the Whigs and Democrats, but really they took most of the Whigs and the Whigs were hurt by this and didn't even run in 1860. Take it how you want it.

[Lord Golbez]

I agree that the 2 party systems sux. It is too long entrenched though. Historically has any independent won the presidential seat?

The Republicans won in 1860, and they were independent of the Whigs and Democrats, but really they took most of the Whigs and the Whigs were hurt by this and didn't even run in 1860. Take it how you want it.

When the independent BECOMES the 2nd major party, it hardly matters, because the two party system simply continues.

[j0hn Ayanami]

The only thing Bush is right about is we absolutely need to continue to pressure North Korea with talks using South Korea, Japan, and China to constantly pressure North Korea. If the US goes it alone and fails, which they most likely with because Kim Jong Il is pretty much insane, it will piss off the South Koreans, the Japanese just might get bombed by the North Koreans, and China will just wind up laughing.

That's the ONLY point I think Bush made in the entire debate.

Sorry, that was a mis-type.

[Vincent]

I'm confused here, are you saying Bush agrees with bilateral talks with North Korea, or am I just completely reading your post wrong?

[Patchingko]

Bilateral or multilateral, the way Bush is handling North Korea is obviously ineffective.

[j0hn Ayanami]

Bilateral or multilateral, the way Bush is handling North Korea is obviously ineffective.

That's defenitely true, but Bush is an idiot.

This worries me about Kerry - he pushes for more international help in Iraq, but wants to go into bi-lateral talks with North Korea. China putting the pressure that only China can put on North Korea is a very important key, even though Bush I don't think fully realizes it. North Korea is run by an insane, crazy dictator who is not like Saddam and wants to protect his riches but still let a large majority of his people live out their lives. Kim Jong Il is just plain crazy; there is very little that your life is comprised of that isn't dictated completely by the government. North Koreans who are suffering from malnourishment and diseases still completely believe they are living in paradise, and America and the Japanese are coming to take that away from them.

If you look up some of their propaganda, you'll think it's an internet hoax or something crazy.

But it's real.

The point is, China is possibly the only country North Korea would actually listen to, although now I think that even might not be true; but China is still quite important to breaking North Korea without having to go to war.

[Patchingko]

Kerry wants bilateral talks because that ensures that we have complete control over North Korean nuclear proliferation. With multilaterals, things are as they are now, meaning we have less surveilance and cannot establish more without discussing it with these other countries, all of whom will want a piece of the pie themselves. Kerry hasn't said he plans to stop multilateral talks, as far as I know, but instead to go into a bilateral relationship in order to ensure complete control over their proliferation.

If Kerry worries you because of this, that's fine, but realize that Bush's multilateral plan has only resulted in a complete regression in our control over North Korea and gained Kim Jong Il a few nukes.

Also, there is no reason to believe that China has any interest in ousting Kim Jong Il or allowing the reunification of the Korean peninsula. To the contrary, a reunification under a democratic rule would only hurt Chinese control of the region. I'm sure you know enough about the conflicting forces in the Korean peninsula to know better than that. The Chinese goverment may not love Kim Jong Il, but they'd like even less a fully democratized and US-sponsered Korea.

I'm not against multilateral talks, personally, but if it means a reduction in surveilance and loss of control over North Korean nuclear proliferation, I would have to be. If they could be done in a manner that would avoid those issues, I think they'd be better, since the US is not the only country affected by North Korean military expansion and illegal practices. However, one must realize that it creates a great deal more bureaucratic machinery to wheel through before getting anything done, which Kim Jong Il will take (and already has taken) full advantage of.

[TO]

Bilateral or multilateral, the way Bush is handling North Korea is obviously ineffective.

That's defenitely true, but Bush is an idiot.

This worries me about Kerry - he pushes for more international help in Iraq, but wants to go into bi-lateral talks with North Korea. China putting the pressure that only China can put on North Korea is a very important key, even though Bush I don't think fully realizes it. North Korea is run by an insane, crazy dictator who is not like Saddam and wants to protect his riches but still let a large majority of his people live out their lives. Kim Jong Il is just plain crazy; there is very little that your life is comprised of that isn't dictated completely by the government. North Koreans who are suffering from malnourishment and diseases still completely believe they are living in paradise, and America and the Japanese are coming to take that away from them.

If you look up some of their propaganda, you'll think it's an internet hoax or something crazy.

But it's real.

The point is, China is possibly the only country North Korea would actually listen to, although now I think that even might not be true; but China is still quite important to breaking North Korea without having to go to war.

yeah north korea is BY FAR the most bizarre nation perhaps in the history of this entire planet, and the scary thing is most americans (or people in general) are completely unaware of what goes on in that country.

democrats and republicans have very different ideas of how to deal with north korea. democrats, with the clinton administration felt that talks, and compromise were the way to deal with north korea, and they had a pretty strong case. back in 99 i think it was, madeline albright went over there to talk with kim jong il, who basically put his entire nuclear weapons program on the table and offered to completely discontinue their pursuit of nuclear weapons, in exchange for food aid (which of course would get re-routed to feed his army), and energy. both sides walked away from the table feeling very optimistic that an agreement would finally be reached but lo and behold, G Dub gets elected president and calls north korea out as part of his AXIS OF EVIL. of course kim jong il finds this highly insulting and expetedly continues on with his nuclear program.

from north korea's perspective, what they've gotten from us over the last decade have been a series of broken promises, so they're pretty reluctant to talk, and to listen to what we have to say, and when you add bush's no compromise attitude towards dealing with north korea, it just pushes them further into reclusion and causes them to continue developing nukes. its not that north korea wants nukes so they can start nuking the whole world (maybe just japan), they want nukes because they feel extremely threatened by us. they know that being a communist regime, that we would like NOTHING better than to see them deposed, and a democratic government installed, and regime survival is #1 on their list, which is why 90% of their GDP goes into their military.

the fact of the matter is, the bush administration (and EVERY administration since the armistice) hasn't yet figured out how to deal with the north korea situation. the pentagon supposedly does have a very detailed plan to go into north korea, whenever the timing may be appropriate, but apparently military anaylists have said that the best case scenario is, extremely messy at best. north korea has a million man army, and Seoul, the metro capital of south korea, is within distance of north korean artillery, and they would without a doubt start firing at seoul if the US ever crossed into the DMZ. I believe that if it wasn't for this fact, that bush would have invaded north korea instead of iraq. but even the bush administration realized that attacking north korea would be a bad idea. if they had gone in, we'd probably just as easily have 10,000 dead, instead of 1000+ we have in iraq right now. and plus you count the fact that as john said, the people of north korea, starving, tortured, and disease filled as they are, are completely convinced that they are living in total paradise, and that we are spawn of hell coming to take that away from them.

now I for one agree with bush's assesment that compromising with north korea isn't good, because you're essentially awarding bad behavior, but the fact is, we're guilty of some of that bad behavior too, and history has proven that when you deal with NK the way bush has opted to, the results seem to be far worse than the compromise route.

the way I see it, the only possible way for us to take over north korea would be to come up with some sort of force field technology that we could use to protect seoul, japan, hawaii, and the continental US, and then bombard the shit out of their country with the largest airstrike ever in the history of modern warfare, and then slowly move up from the dmz with a huge multinational coalition of troops totalling over 1 million. and then we'd probably be successful.

btw if anyone wants to see a pretty unbiased view of how north korea is, read this

its a pretty interesting story

[Tyr]

Anyone watching the VP debate?

[Kokaku]

I’m sort of paying attention. I don’t think it’s really a big deal and regardless of who wins or losses. It’s not going to change my vote at all.

[Shuzo Ru]

I caught only bits and pieces of the debate, but from what I saw, Bush was clearly outdone. Every rebuttal seemed to end with some remark about Kerry flip-flopping on issues, even if the question had nothing to do with that.

I also happened to catch some of the vice-presidential debate last night, which was a lot better in my opinion. However, things did tend to get personal, with Cheney and Edwards constantly attacking each other's records rather than sticking to the issue at hand. Got to love politicians huh?

[Lord Golbez]

I need to go harvest some trees or whatever will they do without me?

[Fei Ayanami]

need some wood?

[j0hn Ayanami]

Yeah, I dunno about the second one. Kerry made some good points, but there were sometimes where he seemed a bit weak.

Naming China and India as two countries having more "technology" grads then we do is a completely misleading statement that I hope people caught on to.

I still think Bush looked really bad at times.

[Kage]

John... you will be surprise that the statement is not that far off.

[Ole Kentucky Shark]

Luckily, I only make $10 an hour doing professional-level IT jobs for my university, so my job is still safe from india!

Kerry has done very well in the first two debates. His response to the Abortion Question in debate #2 was probably his best answer yet... a number of analysts are actually calling it his worst moment, because he dodged the question... but it was a ridiculous question to begin with, and he really couldn't have given a good direct answer.

His answer, however, was an extremely eloquent and seemingly heartfelt statement of Kerry's commitment to protect the civil liberties of others.

[j0hn Ayanami]

John... you will be surprise that the statement is not that far off.

I know for a fact they graduate more people in technology-related departments than we do. That's also because they have 5 times the number of people we do.

[Vibing_V]

John... you will be surprise that the statement is not that far off.

I know for a fact they graduate more people in technology-related departments than we do. That's also because they have 5 times the number of people we do.

All of whom go to post secondary education? I'm no expert, but I'd be willing to speculate that there's a higher % of the population who go to post secondary school in the US than in India/China.

Bush scares me. The BMD scares me. I notice there's no talk of it directly though, just hints from Bush that the US needs to have pre-emptive measures to help disarm the world of WMDs. Funny how that requires the US to acquire even MORE weapons for herself and to weaponize space, even.

Best Bush quote I've seen from the debate so far (still reading the transcript):

The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty.

His FEAR tactics are pulling through ever constantly in the debate.

[j0hn Ayanami]

Sally, Kerry didn't say percentage, he said "graduates" as in, the term for post-secondary students. He only mentioned China and India, ya know?

[Vibing_V]

you americans have messed up terminology. Shouldn't "graduate" imply that the student has already earned their bachelor's degree?

exact quote plz?

[j0hn Ayanami]

I phrased that wrong. He meant people who graduated from University.

"China and India are graduating more graduates in technology and science than we are."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... _1008.html

[Vibing_V]

Sankyuu John~

Well, "more" is a very fluid term so we can't really speculate what statistical terms he's speaking in. Oh wells!

[Seifer Almasy]

I only caught some of the final debate last night. From what I saw, given that I know lots about bush and not much at all about kerry, I was rather impressed with Kerry, although that's probably an unfair comparison. It's like humans and apes.

I was a little disappointed at how they each reacted about their faith, but I'm glad that question was asked as it is totally relevent. Unfortunately so many of you idiot yanks are christian, so whichever president is more christian will sway much of the support How unconstitutional . . . although I suppose god IS in your constitution.