OT: Debate - Page 4

Gandalf Parker · #31 October 4th, 2004, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Katchoo said:
"Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops".
Looks like Poland isn't in Iraq for the long haul:
Poland could withdraw Iraq troops

The "long haul" mght be the problem. For whatever reasons someone accepts as being why we are in Iraq, it would appear possible to say "we came, we won, we go home now". There doesnt seem to be a war to fight there anymore. There IS fighting but no war. Whatever reason there was for going in does not seem to be the reason to stay and fight. We are looking like the kid who doesnt want to leave the ballfield after the game is over, and is yelling at all the other kids who are going home.

Someone tried to bait me in another group by saying "Kerry has a plan for winning the war, by pulling out. And everyone knows thats NOT how to win a war". I replied, "of course it is. Say we won and go home". Maybe the problem is that Im in too many gaming newsGroups. Gamers tend to have a different idea of what the rules are for winning a war. I hope Bush isnt a game player.

Greybeard · #32 October 4th, 2004, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Atrocities said:
To be honest, I could care less about this debate or any debate.

If you COULD care less, how much do you care? 10%, 20%?

I suppose you mean that you couldn't care less.

This misuse of English is one of my pet peeves, along with saying "quote, endquote, <quoted line>", instead of "quote <quoted line> endquote". Another one is "not available in all areas". Technically, this means that it is not available anywhere. What they mean is, "not available in SOME areas."

Fyron · #33 October 4th, 2004, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Greybeard said:
Another one is "not available in all areas". Technically, this means that it is not available anywhere. What they mean is, "not available in SOME areas."

"not available in all areas" does not mean "not available anywhere," it means "not available everywhere." "not in all" != "none"

Will · #34 October 4th, 2004, 05:48 PM

Technically, Greybeard is right with the grammar on this one Fyron. Since the "all" is inside the preposition, it is not directly affected by the not. A simple re-write gives: 'In all areas, not available.' So the correct way to say it would be 'not available in some areas.'

Colonel · #35 October 4th, 2004, 05:53 PM

AHHHHHH GRAMER!!!!!! BAD FOR I, I r no like grammer, you make grammer thread, I r scared lolololol

:

solops · #36 October 4th, 2004, 06:05 PM

After careful analysis of the debate, the candidates, their presentation, syntax, grammar, grasp of the problems and logic I have concluded that as a taxpaying voter, I lost.

Roanon · #37 October 4th, 2004, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Arakiel said:
I don't agree. I was a Bush supporter before the debate. Mostly because Kerry is such a slimey little toad that I can't stand him, but after seeing Bush debate the "issues" I am firmly back into the Undecided camp.

Well, obviously you use your brain to think, this means you are one of the very few exceptions - look at how little the predictions have changed after this debate.

And I totally agree, the choice "neither of the above" is really missing in our current form of democracy.

Azselendor · #38 October 5th, 2004, 02:41 AM

One thing I've become tired of is this vietnam BS. I care morea bout what these candidates will do about the vets from that war than each others' war record. The entire campaign has focused on one war after another and now when I tune to fox news, it sounds like they are ramping up to cover a military incursion into Sudan.

Enough with the wars, america needs to build more and progress instead of constanty fighting. Even gamers know that if you keep fighting without shoring yourself up and expanding your resources that you'll pay for it.

I miss FDR's and JFK's grand speeches and visions. When it's done by candidates today, it sounds more like a gust of hot air...

Gandalf Parker · #39 October 5th, 2004, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Klvino [ORB] said:
One thing I've become tired of is this vietnam BS. I care morea bout what these candidates will do about the vets from that war than each others' war record.

Well I cant help but agree with that statement (but then I have a personal interest since I am one).

Greybeard · #40 October 5th, 2004, 11:09 AM

I thought Kerry showed that he's a good debater. However, he didn't really make any significant points to hurt Bush. He made a huge gaff when he talked about passing an international test (getting Kofi Anon's permission) before taking action to defend the US. This will come back to hurt him; big time.

Bush looked tired and didn't take the offensive. He should have focused on Kerry abysmal 20 year record in the Senate and his missing so many intelligence committee meetings. Also, he should have continued to show that Kerry doesn't really have any plans, but is just saying he could do better. I want to know HOW Kerry would do anything differently! I can guess, based on Kerry's past votes and inactivity, but he won't give specifics.

Even I could be a great leader if I could say that with what I know today, I would have acted differently. Duh...

I agree with the Democrat's campaign manager; the debate was a draw...