Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Noctis
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bleuachdu
Kerry won the debate, but not on substance. He delivered his points eloquently in a cool calm and collected manner. Bush looked distracted, hesitant and tired. Kerry certainly didn't completely dominate Bush as some of you seem to think; in fact Kerry was inconsistent (who'd have guessed?) with his overall theme and message. Bush stood strong with his points, which will score high with a lot of people. Kerry tried to bust him on this with the "evaluative approach" which was somewhat trivial.
Still, in the end, Kerry edges Bush in this debate. If GW would have had his act together and not run out of material near the end, he would've been the victor. Kerry also "wins" this debate by not losing. In other words, If he would've gotten killed tonight, the election would've essentially been over.
Short Hand - you're a smelly putrid cunt. Enjoy your time on earth as an average, marginal, and vapid sheep.
PS - I'm really sick of youth centered liberal elitism... I had a good conversation with my roommate about this the other day. I may start a thread next few days when i can put my thoughts together.
|
I agree with you in saying that GW didn't win, but I don't agree that Kerry really won either. I think that, having just watched recaps on some things I missed, that they ended up pretty even. Neither really had a knockout, nor did either really fall apart on anything. I have a feeling that the debates are going to be too close to call the election. |
I agree that it was very close. I think my point was that Kerry "looked better" and to the likely majority of Americans, thats more important than the issues that were debated. I'm not discrediting the American people's intelligence, but I am saying that perception is 20/20.