BPsite Forums

in case you didn't know, there was a presidential debate on last night, and all you bush-haters would be rolling around laughing at how poorly bush did.  anyway, opinions? :)

Been trying to find a full copy of it... from the soudbites on the news, I pointed and laughed at Bush, however. :).

I didn't watch it, since (if I could vote) I'd choose Bush regardless.  ;)  

So, basicly, you're a mindless drone who will vote for Bush because he's Bush, and not on the strength of his campaign?

Er.. what?

most often said quote:

"it's hard...really, it's really hard" :P

No, I've already made up my mind because Bush is strong on the war against terror, will fight injustices in the world, strengthen the economy (as much as a politician can), and keep Democrats away from the White House (hehe).  LOL  

all 'good' american qualitys egh?

oh, why did i get an email about this topic?

Yeah Bush can't speak to save his life but Kerry is so inconsistant. :unsure:  

Bush was terrible, h had nothing, just repeated the same damn things over and over.  

a summary of his points

"My op-op-opponent is sending mixed messages  (10 second pause) Saddam Hussein is a bad man, Iraqi's want freedom (10 second pause) Allawi is god and if you say stuff about him you don't love freedom (6 seconds of blinking and stammering) Saddam hussein was a bad man

oh god tell me about it.

i got so sick of it after the first hour. god we were required to watch it htough <_<

i'm too tired for going into depth but i definitely agree that bush sucked ass

No he isn't. From what I can see, Kerry has changed his view on Iraq once in a two year period. Is that unreasonable, considering that the accepted intelligence has changed massively over that time? Does it perhaps suggest that Kerry takes stock of the situation and modifies his stances to better suit current happenings, rather than solidly sticking to a position that has been widely discredited?

I don't know about you, but that seems like common sense to me.

well i was up till 1am last night watching the debate and frankly im a little worried either of them might be voted in. there really needs to be a third party.

Bush made sense; he may have put his foot wrong a few times with what he was saying but i sat there nodding my head and think he made a faily good speech. except he blinked fast than a horny rabbit which put me off and he decided to emphasise by hitting his desk which keeped booming.

Kerry also made sense; he had some good point of nuclear proliferation and he finally said the N.K. words and personally north korea is far more important than iraq. but bin laden? talk about flogging a dead horse, the reason US troops didnt go into the tora bora mountains is because its an asstrap, they would have been swallowed up and never seen again. oh and no you dont have the best trained troops in the world, you just have the greatest number. Iraq is now and it needs calming and fixing. N.K. is for the future but dont undermine other countrys authoritys while doing it. seems to support UN dicissions far more than bush does though.

which reminds me of bushes comment about the treaty allowing the haig to prosecute people. he said that he didnt sign into it because he didnt think they had a right to take citizens or leader (like himself no?) and charge them at a foreign court... now correct me if im wrong but didnt bush 16 months ago decide that his foreign country should charge another country with genocide and arms production?

all very confusing in the end they went round in circles so many times. my verdict: find another candidate.

thats what i've been saying all along

*nods along w/ Galmort*

good news is that Bush is slipping. Polls showed a few weks ago that Bush was winning 50% to 46%  now it is a dead heat

I think Bush needs to win, even though he as a President is..... underqualified.  Remember, behind every bad President is a bunch of powerful advisers.  LOL

Mole- I think Bush doesn't agree with the international court because Americans that serve in Iraq may be charged in it (since the rest of the world doesn't support the war, and will use the court as a political tool).

Iraq is more important now, since we're already in there, but I definatly believe we'll need to deal with N.K. very soon.  :(  

no, they wouldnt charge the soldiers unless they'd done somthing wrong but most likely they would take bush there.

When you say deal with N.K. i hope you mean deligations, if you try and do there what you didi in Iraq your gonna be kicked in the nads. besides i like north korea, sure they have a nuclear program and their a world threat but hey have you seen their culture? theyve got these great hulking dictator and communist statues and when they hold games there preperation is stupidly huge.


did the other 4% sqiggle all over the sheet?

Presidential debate...or is it? (http://uploads.ungrounded.net/content.php?id=195602&name=195602_debate1.swf&title=Galactic%20Debate%202004&date=1096948800&quality=b&uj=0&w=572&h=520)

On a slightly different note, is anyone gonna watch the VP debate tonight?  :miffed:  

itll gte repeated here in the next few days id guess

i watched all but the first few minutes of that.  I think cheney embarassed Edwards there, TBH.  Especially on the line "I havn't met you until you walked in tonight", talking about Edwards' senate record.

I quite liked Cheney/Edwards. Very entertaining. I don't think anyone won it, however, as opposed to the whupping Kerry gave Bush. Shows the difference between Cheney and Bush, I'd say, as Edwards is a *very* good debater.

kerry what? he didnt whupp him, ive seen more whupping watching old ladies fight over bingo...ok bad example but still

Those old ladies are brutal. :ph34r:  

How do you know?  LOL  

I used to hang out  around those bingo places doing community service.

*pats fire on the shoulder* there there fire, you'll recover someday LOL

thats not somthing you recover easily from though. poor you