Darnoc Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Even tough I am only half an American, I want to say something about this matter. It was tried to create the image of Kerry being a flipflopper. But now honestly, who is the man of better character: 1. A man who stands firmly and stubborn by his belief and opinion, even when he is proven wrong. 2. A man who sees the failure in his belief and changes it therefore, not only this, he also sees the complexity of our world and how relative everything is. For anyone with good common sense, case number 2 is the better character. But it seems as most people have lost this common sense and listen to lies instead to reason. Standing to ones belief is easy, everyone can do this. Seeing the failure in something you believe needs greater wisdom and it needs a greater character to also change this belief into what is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 I'm curious to see why people thought Kerry was the winner of the debate though. Everyone I've talked to said that they thought he won hands down and I just didn't see it that way (although I'm glad that most people did). Speaking personally, it's because if you listen to what they said, Kerry was putting his views then and explaining why he had these views. Bush was just putting his views, then basically saying 'trust me, I'm the President.' Even tough I am only half an American, I want to say something about this matter. It was tried to create the image of Kerry being a flipflopper. But now honestly, who is the man of better character: 1. A man who stands firmly and stubborn by his belief and opinion, even when he is proven wrong. 2. A man who sees the failure in his belief and changes it therefore, not only this, he also sees the complexity of our world and how relative everything is. Again, speaking personally, it would be number 2. Both Bush and Blair would now have far more respect from me, if no-one else, if they had simply said 'sorry, we were wrong', and then proceeded to put things right as best they were able. It is now too late for that. They both insisted that they were right and everyone else was wrong long after it was abundantly clear that they got it wrong. As such, although I know very little about Kerry, he would get my vote (if I was American) simply because he seems willing to admit it if and when he gets it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surian Posted October 4, 2004 Author Share Posted October 4, 2004 Exactly, however unpopular I may be for saying it: I think that if Bush had just said from the get-go that he wanted to invade Iraq because it would build our empire through oil and influence in the middle east I (while not agreeing with it) would have more respect for him today and I might have even voted for him again. The one thing that did strike me in the debate was that Bush (as you said earlier) never really gave any reasons for his opinions. I agree with that, but he did play the flip-flopping card on Kerry who (I thought) didn't do a good enough job defending himself. I guess it's a matter of opinion on this one but for the first time I thought that Bush showed some level of both intelligence and compassion, although like I said he more than made up for that by saying some very stupid things later on. As i started this thread I have a new question for people though:-- Did your opinions change about one candidate or the other or both while watching the debate? Personally, while my vote is uneffected I was impressed with how well Bush handled himself for once and he gained a little more respect from me. Kerry on the other hand did a fantastic job getting his point across and made me respect him a little more also. I did not have much of an opinion on Kerry until this debate as I had not seen him in action before but I was much impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Even if I could vote, meaning if I were a US-citizen, my opinion wouldn't be changed just by some speech. Actions and behaviour is what makes a person, not words. And there has to be definitely somebody else than Bush. Bush was counted, measured and found not suitable for the job. So even when Kerry turns out to be a not so good president, he will be better than this stuborn maniac who has now the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postaldudeleo Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 An interesting fact: bahdad in islam means "city of peace". Yes, bush wanted to build a empire on oil. But the IMPORTANT THING IS "we went to a right war for the wrong reasons" That sums up bush. Kerry= "we went to a WRONG war for the reasons" Now this is liek vietnam. If we finished our commitment in vienam then 2 million vietnam people would not have been exucuted after we left because pussies said that killing babies was wrong. Not if the babies had grenades put into thier hands and shoved in the direction of usa soldier. Ok, bush wont adtim thta we went for the wrong reasons but a final takedown ofn the middle east will definitly needed soon and more wars with them will follow anyways. The democrats just didnt want to go to war period no matter what. They are all pussies plain and simple. Bush sucks but the war was the right thing to do. Vietnam was the right thing to do and if dudes like kerry oppose war completally then we will never get anywhere. You cant peace talk a bunch of raging vulktards. My and bushes answer "eat bombs mothervulkers" Kerry is definetly a bettter president but his ideals are all wrong. Plus, whats wrong with wanting oil? (this is all considering im the kind of person who would be the first person to shoot of the middle finger of someone flicking me off) :innocent: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 @postaldudeleo: You seem very harsh and angry... so angry that, your points are not going to be taken seriously... though i will agree, wars wil not end in the middle-east anytime soon. and not all democrats are that way... it's the liberal democrats that are anti-war. (no offense to anyone) We need a president that is not afriad to go to war. From the debate, i gathered that he is more afriad about what other countries think of him than the safety of the American people. I'm sorry but i agree with bush on the pre-emptive attack policy. Kerry was weak in this issue. I think the reason why Kerry was decided as the winner, is because he spoke more clearly... Bush is not a good speaker. I personally think this is the wrong thing to judge by. Bush had many good responses and Kerry did too, but i don't think either really one. They were so different that it was hard to compare the two. One was never really wrong, it was just how they said it and whether the public liked hearing it or not. This debate didn't really show me reasons to vote Kerry over Bush... This debate wouldn't effect the "undecided voters" that much. Actually, I would say if this was the last debate and the voting was tomorrow, Bush would get more of the "undecided votes." Kerry needed a killer response to everything... he didn't have them, so this debate didn't work in his favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiade Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Now this is liek vietnam. If we finished our commitment in vienam then 2 million vietnam people would not have been exucuted after we left because pussies said that killing babies was wrong. Not if the babies had grenades put into thier hands and shoved in the direction of usa soldier. So so wrong. We left because we were getting our arses kicked. We could only deploy 200,000 troops at a time, and they had to be recalled every 6 months. Plus the fact that our soldiers had ZERO jungle combat training, whereas the Vietnamese had lived in the jungle their entire lives. Bush sucks but the war was the right thing to do. How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postaldudeleo Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 No usa soldiers were not gettign are arses kicked. We in fact before we left had expelled all troops from south vietnam and were preparing a strike to go into north vietnam to finish this poo. The ho chi min trial and all surrounding areas near south vietnammeese cities have been cleared. We were gettign are arses kicked in air combat because russia was supplying a better jet near the end of vietnam and are arses were kicked near the middle of vietnam but near the end we were winning. Fo everyone of our soldiers ill say this agian, thousands of vietnamees were being killed. We caved in from political protest and unpopularity. If we stayed a few more months then the war would be over. In vietnam we did not go brute force but rather deployed 200 tousands troops because we didnt want to deploy more due to hate of the war itself and the vietnam veterans got no respect when they were returned home. You can ask my history teacher who was in vietnam near the end and he will second what I just siad so will quite a few books. This is liek in somolia that we were kiliign about a rate of 20000 enemy trops for one dead usa soldier but the right thing to do was leave in that case because the populace was all agianst us and with 7 million angry druggies even that 20000 rate is not worth dying for. In vietnam it is. And why is the war in iraq good, because as soona s all opposition is clreared out and eliminated then this poo can finally stop. Alsow e will have a shitload of oil and my dad's lincoln sedan will stop costing as much to fuel because premium gas is a rippoff bout now. Then i can get a better media player ^_^ from iriver. Anyhow back on topic, when all those stupid bastards are conquered and the terroism from the middle east goes away then this bullshit can finally stop. The war is taking a step closer to makign a prosperous middle east in the long run. This poo has got to stop. I REALLY MEAN IN THE LONG RUN!!!! Not now, int he long run. period! Oh did I mention cheaper oil also? This is why I must say that you can't critisize the war that much as is is a good thing to "clean" that shitty area up in the long run. A good thing done for the wrong reasons is still a good thing. Killing enemies and staigening upa backward country is a good thing. @tyget- Well what can i say, im all for direct use of brute force to get somethign done. Also if it must be done then it sould be done right! If I get a car, then im gettign a bmw, if I get a pc then i get fx-53, if I get pc coolign I get phase change and peltier. If I get video games I get all. If I get speakers i get suround sound 7.1 9 huge vulking speakers with professioanl microphone and surround sound 5.1 heaphone from I/0. if I go to college, i go to MIT. I can go on and on.................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surian Posted October 4, 2004 Author Share Posted October 4, 2004 "we went to a right war for the wrong reasons" That sums up bush. Kerry= "we went to a WRONG war for the reasons" Well, actually I think this is not exactly the case. Bush has yet to say that we had the wrong reasons. He just keeps changing his reasons to better suit the facts of the day. Kerry on the other hand says "The war was justified but there were things we should have done before comitting troops" That does not boil down to him saying "We went to the Wrong war..." One of the points I thought Kerry actually did a good job in defending himself on during the debate was that very point. He is FOR getting rid of Saddam, he is FOR war with Iraq if it was needed, but he was AGAINST the methods that Bush's administration took when they cut off diplomatic attempts so quickly. Kerry is definetly a bettter president but his ideals are all wrong. Plus, whats wrong with wanting oil? I find that quote to be very confusing... Kerry is a better president? Then he should be elected right? Every decision a person makes is based on their ideals and that means that to be a good president you must have good ideals... So this must mean that for Kerry to be a better president his ideals must be better than Bush's, and sinse Kerry's ideals are terrible to begin with then Bush's are even worse than that by your logic. So why would you vote for Bush if you actually think that? Bush, by your argument, is not only a worse president but also his ideals are an abomination to mankind... Oh, and as for "what's wrong with wanthing oil?" Nothing... but again it's what you do to get it that brings up moral questions. And why is the war in iraq good, because as soona s all opposition is clreared out and eliminated then this poo can finally stop. Alsow e will have a shitload of oil and my dad's lincoln sedan will stop costing as much to fuel because premium gas is a rippoff bout now. Then i can get a better media player happy.gif from iriver. Anyhow back on topic, when all those stupid bastards are conquered and the terroism from the middle east goes away then this bullshit can finally stop. The war is taking a step closer to makign a prosperous middle east in the long run. This poo has got to stop. I REALLY MEAN IN THE LONG RUN!!!! Not now, int he long run. period! ... I'm not even going to start trying to explain why this is wrong. If you want we can start a new thread on it but let's keep talking about the debate for now. I'm still curious though: Did anyone actually change their opinions at all over the debate? I don't mean "Are you going to change your vote" just did your opinions change one way or the other on any of the candidates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postaldudeleo Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 I belive kerry and bush both did a great job on the debate and in realy its a tie on voting and this is probably a better win for kerry and they have graphs to prove this on cnn. <_< When i meant that kerry is a better president but ideals are wrong I choose on Dont like party ideas on anti war but like kerry because he himself honestly is better but his party is much worse and fit for todays job. If only Kerry and bush switched parties and commitees :( I belive kerry and bush both did a great job on the debate and in realy its a tie on voting and this is probably a better win for kerry and they have graphs to prove this on cnn. <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.