|
Post by Renaissance Man on Oct 1, 2004 2:04:59 GMT -5
Is it just me or what's with Kerry.
I don't think Bush did as well as he could of.
I think Kerry did much better than was anticipated. He was steady and in control of himself. The problem is as usual there was no substance to what he had to say.
If you just read the important hilights with out seeing or hearing the debate Kerry would be the BIG looser.
He simply can't put it all together because in reality he has nothing, simple as all that.
If this had been a college debate where you were rated on presence not substasnce Kerry would of won hands down.
The problem with Kerry is that the job of President of the United States needs a man with substance (much much) more than presence. To have both like a Ronald Reagon would be great. Kerry just doesn't even come near qualifying for this job. Hell he doesn't even make a good Senator.
I was let down by Bush but what I think happened to him was the same thing that happens to me everytime I hear Kerry's voice, it puts me to sleep if I listen to it for more than 2 minutes, he's such a bore, a phony, and a snob. Add to that the rediculous things Kerry says and you have a president saying to himself, GOD, what am I doing here debating this self rightous piece of shit phony war hero that can put together a lot of words that sound good but in reality he doesn't know what he's talking about.
|
|
|
Post by SENIOR CITIZEN on Oct 2, 2004 11:13:11 GMT -5
john the coward was very serious. Bush looked disinterested, like he was forced into this debate. This debate did not prove anything. Kerry did not gain any points. Why was KERRY taking notes? Probably thought these questions would be on his next exam.
|
|