 |
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv8ed
It hasn't been banned. It's been severely curtailed, because Bush won't allow new lines to be produced for further study. |
This has caused a movement of experts in the field to Europe too, since the resources there are now much, much better.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
I listened to the debate on radio as I was in the car at the time. I thought that Bush sounded much better than Kerry in that medium. |
To be fair though, you are really biased towards Bush.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Kerry won, but not by as much as Debate 1. Bush though really is out of his element on style. That's how he won points in the 2000 debates, now he's losing points based on them. |
I think Bush is really going to be taking a continued beating with his standing among swing voters. May this dirty neo-con garbage die with his presidency.
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Though the best part was the embryonic stem cell research where Bush said it's killing life and in the same breath that he was the first president to approve using embryonic stem cells. When Kerry call him on it, Bush said they were already killed.
So, Mr. President, it's ok to experiment on them if they've already been killed? That really bolsters your we can't do it because it is killing life claim. |
To be fair though, he did have a point. When this issue had to be decided those lines were already in existence, so the original embryos for the lines had already 'died'.
Of course, this fails to address why you can't use embryos from fertility clinics that are going to get tossed out anyhow.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
LOL.....ahh, I needed that.
Thanks.
-Drachasor
PS. Before I paid close attention to the link address I thought it was going to be to something on the Internet 2.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
IMO, both dished it out pretty good. Kerry hammered Bush on the deficit, promising to tax the rich. Bush pointed out that the so-called rich are the small business owners who create jobs.
Bush hammered Kerry on the global test. Kerry said he was a warrior too, but would lead aliances like Eisenhower and Reagan. (Boy, if there was one theme to Kerry tonight, it was that he quoted Republicans on a host of issues. But twice he made reference to Eishenhower and Reagan.)
Bush pointed out, however, that Reagan was equally unpopular in Europe because he made the tough decisions on the cold war that the Europeans did not like. Reagan took the decision despite their being upopular -- an obvious dig at Kerry the warrior.
Bush was far more passionate -- a man animated by conviction. Kerry was suave and intelligent. He is a lawyer and it would have been very good in the courtroom had he chosen to stay on that path.
So, Bush won the debate, narrowly, due primarily to Kerry's excellence in debate style. Bush had the advantage on the facts and the passion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:21
|
|
I only caught the last half of this debate. Why is it that you didn't make huge BLING BLING thread about this earlier!? And I caught it by accident too.
ABout the last half.. I think Bush definitely has stepped up from the first time. I'm talking about his body language, and the uncomfortable pauses were there but they were shorter and almost OK already, and he was driving some points home. I think this style of debate, the town hall debate is good for Bush, I think he looked pretty good too. The pauses he uses... when he goes to simplify things.. I think those are very effective. However I don't lke them myself, if the answer or question he makes is grossly oversimplifying to drive his own point, with false premise or false outcome. But.. in any case, he did it better than the first time and had much more appeal. Maybe he looked a bit too angry. Also one point he needs to be careful is the facial expressions during Kerry's turn, you kind of get the feeling of him being very uncomfortable. But other than that.. I think he did an OK job.
Kerry did a good job too IMO, and he has implemented some new tactics which I think are excellent, but are they effective enough is the question. He is turning the flip flop issue a little, not decisively enough but he is also avoiding to put too much attention to it, because Bush woudl attack it even more and the whole debate and important stuff would be then 2nd priority in every debate and he couldn't drive any points home. But I think he did a good job of turning it a little. THe uses a lot of quotes and statistics, which is good. Bush uses more 'Of course not' and 'of course it is' without backing it up. I mean, soem of the statistics he uses to back up few points, like the job markets is kind of weak.
So he is attacking those issues, and what is the clear strategy for Kerry now is to attack Bush's oversimplifying attacks on Kerry. Meaning 'he voted' this and that, and then Kerry replies to it that he didn't vote against THAT per se, but THIS. He covered a lot of issues by saying he is not opposed to FBI working more effectively, he is not opposing this and that what Bush says, he is opposing the deal itself, and he wants to fix them. Like Tokyo Treaty, I think his answer couldn't be any more perfect saying, that it's a big effort from the whole word and while it's problematic ot the US, the deal itself not the idea, that he wants ot work a good deal and fix it rather than just walk away and undermine the effort. Now that was a good answer, and I liked it. He used it a lot in other answers too, like the abortion one etc. and Patriot Act etc.. the idea is OK, but the deal is still raw, let's fix it. He's trying to get a new image of 'I'm the can do guy' and who would fix these things for the better.
It's very difficult to counter claims like these, if you started with simplyfying. So they had a good strategy on that one. But then again.. kerry did mistakes too, I mean he was kind of.. I can't get my fingers on it but he was going too wide on issues when Bush was going more straight at what he believes is the main issue in it. Kerry used too much time to back up his incoming point, while Bush used much of his time to make the one point known he has, and then make those pauses and trying to torpedo Kerry in it. It's basically a clash of styles.. I thin kKerry would have been better off to be little more vigilant and all that.
I think performance wise, it was pretty much a tie, I couldnt' say who would be better. On debate wise, I think Kerry one, but only by very small margin. And this is because he used the strategy to counter the simplyfying attacks which I think he did beautifully.
Oh by the way, the 3 mistakes question, i think Bush did a great job. He KNEW Kerry would attack the Iraq question and maybe economy too. So, if he would even start talking about that, he would look extremely weak, both of them bashing himself. Now, if he would take another subject he feels he can admit some mistakes, then it'd end up more mistakes revealed, because Kerry would still attack too. So I think he did damage control and kind of let the Kerry attack come but didn't want to give any bigger impact to it than that, and also rather try to soften the Kerry attack before it comes,so I think that was the ONLY move he could have done, knowing his chosen strategy this far.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-10-2004 10:08
:
|