NationStates Jolt Archive

George, that was atrocious..! But....

Even with the most incredibly awful presentation I've EVER seen by a public official, many "undecideds" are STILL on George's side..

WHAT in god's name is that about..!?

According to that "snap" poll from CBS, only 50% of "undecideds" thought that Kerry came off looking better in the debate.

HOW on earth is that possible..?

I would expect 110% of any group to believe that Kerry came off better than George in that debate.

What this is telling me is that there is absolutely no hope for Kerry, as after this complete trouncing, George is STILL capable of holding his (majority) constituency as well as getting a portion of the "undecideds".

What do you say to the obvious overwhelming victor of a battle (Kerry) who discovers that he's valiantly and gloriously conquered a large dung heap..!?

(( I am a rabid Bush supporter, by the way, and see this all as lovely fortune for "my side", but the weirdness of it all has just stunned me to the core. ))

Kerry won the debate on the issue that voters believe is Bush's strongest point. There are 2 more debates to go. One will deal with Kerry's strong point, domestic politics. Bush needed a strong showing in this debate because his whole campaign has centered around his foreign policy. I'm looking forward to seeing how Rove preps Bush for the next one.

Rove: "Mr. President, quit scowling!"

Bush: "I'm a war president, and its hard work!"

Rove: "We know, but try not to pause when you speak"

Bush: "I wanna be the peace president."

Rove: "Yes, that's great, but we're talking about social security Mr. President."

Bush: "My opponent demoralizes the troops and I don't. Its hard work."

Rove: "Mr. President, you must talk about what you'll do for social security!"

Bush: "Saddam Hussein would have hurt us and I couldn't wait for that. I made a hard decision and its hard work."

Rove: "Mr. President, you need to focus on your plans for social security and how Kerry is going to bankrupt us."

Bush: "I'm the president, and its hard work. We have to be on the attack."

Rove: "Someone get him a valium and a vodka"

Size 4 isn't neccessary, and wears out my scrolling finger on this crappy 800x600 resolution display.

well from glazing over yahoo to look at rall and tucker editorials i saw it read 3 polls say george got his ass handed to him, not in those terms of course.

and this just goes to show americans are stupid, republican, democrat, or independent, this and every other study, ever. maybe its the people who think ESPN is a real news channel as opposed to a sports news channel (*referencing local letter to editor*)

[Thunderland #2]
Kerry won the debate on the issue that voters believe is Bush's strongest point. There are 2 more debates to go. One will deal with Kerry's strong point, domestic politics. Bush needed a strong showing in this debate because his whole campaign has centered around his foreign policy. I'm looking forward to seeing how Rove preps Bush for the next one.

Rove: "Mr. President, quit scowling!"

Bush: "I'm a war president, and its hard work!"

Rove: "We know, but try not to pause when you speak"

Bush: "I wanna be the peace president."

Rove: "Yes, that's great, but we're talking about social security Mr. President."

Bush: "My opponent demoralizes the troops and I don't. Its hard work."

Rove: "Mr. President, you must talk about what you'll do for social security!"

Bush: "Saddam Hussein would have hurt us and I couldn't wait for that. I made a hard decision and its hard work."

Rove: "Mr. President, you need to focus on your plans for social security and how Kerry is going to bankrupt us."

Bush: "I'm the president, and its hard work. We have to be on the attack."

Rove: "Someone get him a valium and a vodka"

HEH HE HE HE HE HE HE HE...!!!! :D

Oh god,... that's perfect..!!

Heh he he... just,.. he he he he he... can't stop laughing..!

Oh my stomach..! Heh he he... ouch....

Heh he he he... Uhhhhh... what a marroon...! <old Bugs Bunny line>

Heh he he he...

Sometimes ya' just gotta call a royal fnook-up a royal fnook-up,.. ya' know..!

:D

[Myrth #3]
Size 4 isn't neccessary, and wears out my scrolling finger on this crappy 800x600 resolution display.

As with the Inquisition,.. nobody EXPECTS the "Size 4"...!

And get a better freaking monitor, or take some finger aerobics classes.

:D

I'm a Bush supporter, but I have to agree that the President has a severe difficulty when it comes to expressing himself. I wonder what his advisors were doing, because there were many times I thought he would have had a perfect, inspiring answer to use. Heck, I thought up a couple just watching the debates. Either he isn't listening to his coaches, or they are doing a bad job.

I also noticed that there were obvious answers to certain questions, which I imagine the President very well could have answered. However, if he and I had the same answers, I can understand why he didn't use them.

[Thunderland #2]
Kerry won the debate on the issue that voters believe is Bush's strongest point. There are 2 more debates to go. One will deal with Kerry's strong point, domestic politics. Bush needed a strong showing in this debate because his whole campaign has centered around his foreign policy. I'm looking forward to seeing how Rove preps Bush for the next one.

Rove: "Mr. President, quit scowling!"

Bush: "I'm a war president, and its hard work!"

Rove: "We know, but try not to pause when you speak"

Bush: "I wanna be the peace president."

Rove: "Yes, that's great, but we're talking about social security Mr. President."

Bush: "My opponent demoralizes the troops and I don't. Its hard work."

Rove: "Mr. President, you must talk about what you'll do for social security!"

Bush: "Saddam Hussein would have hurt us and I couldn't wait for that. I made a hard decision and its hard work."

Rove: "Mr. President, you need to focus on your plans for social security and how Kerry is going to bankrupt us."

Bush: "I'm the president, and its hard work. We have to be on the attack."

Rove: "Someone get him a valium and a vodka"

HEH HE HE HE HE HE HE HE...!!!! :D

Oh god,... that's perfect..!!

Heh he he... just,.. he he he he he... can't stop laughing..!

Oh my stomach..! Heh he he... ouch....

Heh he he he... Uhhhhh... what a marroon...! <old Bugs Bunny line>

Heh he he he...

Sometimes ya' just gotta call a royal fnook-up a royal fnook-up,.. ya' know..!

:D

he has plenty of vodka, remember mr bush and vladmir putin are good friends and talk all the time

ahhh.. this debate came up with some pretty fun quotes to pull out of context for both sides

"The only consistant thing about my.... my 'opponents' position is his inconsistancy." -Bush

"It would be the equivilant of invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor." - Kerry

"It's hard to love her as best i can after she lost her husband in Iraq." - Bush

i dont like to pick on them to much because its just plain mean, and on a positive note bush did better than i had expected and kerry didnt say "purple hearts"

better than expected?
did you expect him to stare blankly at the screen, well he did that
did you expect him to break down and cry? ALMOST did that several times
and he accused kerry of being a flip flopper in all but maybe 5 answers?

[Chess Squares #4]
well from glazing over yahoo to look at rall and tucker editorials i saw it read 3 polls say george got his ass handed to him, not in those terms of course.

and this just goes to show americans are stupid, republican, democrat, or independent, this and every other study, ever. maybe its the people who think ESPN is a real news channel as opposed to a sports news channel (*referencing local letter to editor*)

:D

I'm finding it REALLY hard to disagree with you,.. and you KNOW how utterly biased and partisan I am..! :)

But I'm not so sure it's stupidity as much as "inertia", which gives me hope that whomever wins this silly election, very little will change because it's SO stinking hard to steer this "Cow of State".

Heh he he he... god,... it's just so hilarious..!

:D

better than expected?
did you expect him to stare blankly at the screen, well he did that
did you expect him to break down and cry? ALMOST did that several times
and he accused kerry of being a flip flopper in all but maybe 5 answers?


oh dont be too harsh, while it is true that bush got his ass handed to him to his credit he did have some points and he did seem to know what he was talking about, and the original point of my post is that i "missunderestimated" him

i think the fact Bush said Vladmir Putin was doing a good job in his country alone should get Bush kicked out of office. Kerry handed Bush his ass on that too

[New Exodus #7]
I'm a Bush supporter, but I have to agree that the President has a severe difficulty when it comes to expressing himself. I wonder what his advisors were doing, because there were many times I thought he would have had a perfect, inspiring answer to use. Heck, I thought up a couple just watching the debates. Either he isn't listening to his coaches, or they are doing a bad job.

I also noticed that there were obvious answers to certain questions, which I imagine the President very well could have answered. However, if he and I had the same answers, I can understand why he didn't use them.

Good god yes..! :D I've seen better responses from the lower vertibrates that occassionally show up on the Leno Show..!

I'm hoping that some senior advisors to the POTUS are gettin' bitchslapped up one side and down the other of the halls of the White House as we speak..!

Stunning,.. absolutely stunning..!

And yet,... even over my laughter and derision,.. he's far from dead.

Jeez... what a world...!

Heh he he he..... :D

oh dont be too harsh, while it is true that bush got his ass handed to him to his credit he did have some points and he did seem to know what he was talking about, and the original point of my post is that i "missunderestimated" him
i didnt see him make 1 intelligent point, or at least 1 kerry didnt take out with some sniper fire of words

[Chess Squares #15]
i didnt see him make 1 intelligent point, or at least 1 kerry didnt take out with some sniper fire of words

He was "thinking" some intelligent points, but, as usual, George just ASSUMES that the wisdom of his understanding of things is SO OBVIOUS that an expectant stare is the equivalent of actually expressing his wise understanding of the issue at hand.

And it should be obvious to everyone else too, so he's giving us the "Fatherly D'UH..?" routine, in hopes that we'll "get it" in a flash of inspiration, and he can carry on with the "real hard work" of being the POTUS.

Inane,.. but true. Heh he he he... :D

Oh,.. and Kerry must have been in freakin' heaven itself at his incredible luck! I do believe though that his euphoria is wearing off rapidly as he realizes how little benefit he's going to get from this slaughter.

Oh,.. and Kerry must have been in freakin' heaven itself at his incredible luck! I do believe though that his euphoria is wearing off rapidly as he realizes how little benefit he's going to get from this slaughter.
[/FONT]

i dont completely agree, i think that any undecided voters watching the debates will be leaning towards kerry if he continues to good as he did in the last one

I am confident George just found out the difference between his a$$ (which Kerry handed to him) and a hole in the ground.

By the way, the line he attempted to state (regarding the widow of the soldier killed in Iraq) was:

<sound of "Hail to the Chief">

"I tried to love her after her husband was killed."

<sound of the Bee Gees>

"Night fever, night fever...we know how to do it!"

What the hell is going on here?

[Otakopia #17]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Oh,.. and Kerry must have been in freakin' heaven itself at his incredible luck! I do believe though that his euphoria is wearing off rapidly as he realizes how little benefit he's going to get from this slaughter.

i dont completely agree, i think that any undecided voters watching the debates will be leaning towards kerry if he continues to good as he did in the last one

I personally don't believe there ARE any actual undecideds. Only people who don't like to tell people whom they're voting for.

The partisans are firm. They're not moving. And with a complete lack of undecideds, and the trend line of George's margin growing, I think it's pretty much over, regardless of Susan Estridge's pronouncements or the future debates.

[New Florence Marie #18]
What's that you said, George?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am confident George just found out the difference between his a$$ (which Kerry handed to him) and a hole in the ground.

By the way, the line he attempted to state (regarding the widow of the soldier killed in Iraq) was:

<sound of "Hail to the Chief">

"I tried to love her after her husband was killed."

<sound of the Bee Gees>

"Night fever, night fever...we know how to do it!"

What the hell is going on here?

Heh he he he he he..!

Although it sounds more like a Country tune to me...

"I tried to love her after her husband was killed."
"I tried but my friends told me I wasn't much skilled."
"I tried and I tried and I tried and I tried.."
"But Laura and plot 40 were all that got drilled..."


OK,... extreme bad taste. Forget I said that :)

According to that "snap" poll from CBS, only 50% of "undecideds" thought that Kerry came off looking better in the debate.

HOW on earth is that possible..?
It's possible because statistics are not to be trusted, under any circumstances.

i didnt see him make 1 intelligent point, or at least 1 kerry didnt take out with some sniper fire of words
I believe the phrase you're looking for is not "intelligent point" but "point in agreement with you".

Just thought I'd clear that up for you. :)

But I'm not so sure it's stupidity as much as "inertia", which gives me hope that whomever wins this silly election, very little will change because it's SO stinking hard to steer this "Cow of State".[/FONT][/COLOR]

She does fly a bit like a brick doesn't she?

i dont completely agree, i think that any undecided voters watching the debates will be leaning towards kerry if he continues to good as he did in the last one

I agree with you... Iraq is one of Kerry's weakest platforms at the moment, and he still managed to pull ahead of Bush (the numbers in my state have things overwhelmingly in Kerry's favor for the undecided voters, by the way). We've still got domestic policy, and that's where Kerry's going to start mopping the floor with Bush.

It's almost not fair, though... it was like watching a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Ouch.

[Willamena #21]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
According to that "snap" poll from CBS, only 50% of "undecideds" thought that Kerry came off looking better in the debate.

HOW on earth is that possible..?

It's possible because statistics are not to be trusted, under any circumstances.

I am most CERTAINLY not going to argue that one with anyone, and not with Wills especially.

The Dow is up at the moment (20041001.0918), which tells me that the markets are seeing good news. How does Kerry doing well translate to the market being happy..?

The market is telling me that Bush, regardless of that nonsense display of stupidity (not in substance necessarily but in inappropriate personality behavior) they still see "their guy" doing well.

So my conclusions: The debates won't make a bit of difference,.. there ARE NO undecideds,.. Kerry is doomed,.. The electoral numbers will be a massive landslide for Bush,.. George is the single luckiest guy on the face of the planet.

[Riven Dell #23]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
But I'm not so sure it's stupidity as much as "inertia", which gives me hope that whomever wins this silly election, very little will change because it's SO stinking hard to steer this "Cow of State".

She does fly a bit like a brick doesn't she?

Yes indeed,... which is our (the US and the world's) singular saving grace.

If we were more manueverable, we'd REALLY be dangerous.

Which is the entire point of being a "rightist" (conservative), such as myself. Slow change is good. Fast change is bad. Once a course is chosen, continue it to completion, even if some of the aspects of it are discovered to be objectionable. Make minor adjustments, not major ones. Act from base principles, not from fad or fashion.

And of course, never give a leftist an even break. :D

There was an article in the paper here a few weeks ago by Rick Steelhammer saying that the last undecided voter in West Virginia had been found and was cornered in a hollow by both campaigns. It was the funniest thing I've read in a long while.

First off, let's be clear on this: I am a Bush supporter, and I will vote for him in November.

Now: WHY GOD WHY?

That debate was, although not attrocious, damn near close enough. There were many points when I wanted to jump at my TV screen, because I had a brilliant riposte for Kerry's comments, but all Bush offered was, "This is hard work."

I know, I know, one of the points of a debate is to "hammer home" a point. However, I think the message that "Kerry is a flip-flopper" and "I am strong" got pounded in by question number three. By the half-hour mark, I was holding my head in my hands, hoping and praying that he wouldn't answer with the same sound bite to every question. My prayers were ignored.

Also, in addition to the lack of variance in the answers, there was that horrifying blank stare... the kind a cow gives as a train bears down on it. He would ask for a response, and I would perk up, hoping maybe to hear, "My opponent states that I sent in the troops without body armor, when in fact it was he who voted against the bill to provide for these systems." But instead, Bush dropped the ball, stared at the screen haplessly, and then repeated, "I am strong, he is a flip-flopper."

I proceeded to get trashed on cheap liquor.

Don't get me wrong, I love Bush, I love his policies, but God damn, did he get stuffed last night. He got a few good zingers off on Kerry, but the Senator was obviously the better wordsmith. I don't know what happened out there. Looking at the President's websites and campaign pamphlets, there is tons of information he could have smashed Kerry flat with. At many points, I could have smacked the Senator down, and I'm just a polisci student! But last night, Bush stalled out, and Kerry was on top of the ball.

Oh, and if I were a liberal partisan, instead of a conservative, I would be all over the part where the President said, "I know Iraq attacked us... I mean Saddam... I mean bin Laden." In fact, I expect to see that exact moment, spliced with the God-forsaken silences, to pop up on MoveOn.org sometime in the next two weeks. In fact, if they drop that ball, I'd find them lacking. Thank God I'm not on the other side, or I'd have a field day.

Peace and Hair Grease,
K-stan

George, that was atrocious..! But....

Even with the most incredibly awful presentation I've EVER seen by a public official, many "undecideds" are STILL on George's side..

WHAT in god's name is that about..!?

According to that "snap" poll from CBS, only 50% of "undecideds" thought that Kerry came off looking better in the debate.

HOW on earth is that possible..?

I would expect 110% of any group to believe that Kerry came off better than George in that debate.

What this is telling me is that there is absolutely no hope for Kerry, as after this complete trouncing, George is STILL capable of holding his (majority) constituency as well as getting a portion of the "undecideds".

What do you say to the obvious overwhelming victor of a battle (Kerry) who discovers that he's valiantly and gloriously conquered a large dung heap..!?

(( I am a rabid Bush supporter, by the way, and see this all as lovly fortune for "my side", but the weirdness of it all has just stunned me to the core. ))
A snap poll does not make a Nov. 2, vote for either candidate a guarantee. BTW, there are still 2 more debates and if George does as poorly in them, then perhaps there will be enough movement amongst the voters towards Kerry.

[Riven Dell #24]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otakopia
i dont completely agree, i think that any undecided voters watching the debates will be leaning towards kerry if he continues to good as he did in the last one

I agree with you... Iraq is one of Kerry's weakest platforms at the moment, and he still managed to pull ahead of Bush (the numbers in my state have things overwhelmingly in Kerry's favor for the undecided voters, by the way). We've still got domestic policy, and that's where Kerry's going to start mopping the floor with Bush.

It's almost not fair, though... it was like watching a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Ouch.

I agree with the "unarmed man" analogy.

But the weird part is that Kerry has already mopped the floor with Bush, and he'll probably use more Floorshine in the next debates, but it may not hurt Georgy at all.

It won't sway folks like me away from Bush (in fact it will energize the "Bushies" because their misunderstood guy is being "picked on"), and it won't move the non-existant "undecideds" (I content there are none and even the ones that "self-identified" as undecided only moved to Kerry in part and not en masse [I expected a 100% shift to Kerry]).

It's beyond bizarre to me that these so-called "undecideds" aren't entirely Kerry. I see that as a death knell to the Kerry campaign.

Hey, CanuckHeaven, could you tone down the size of that signature? It's blindingly OMGZ HUGE!

;)

On a side note, I'd like to thank Iakeokeo for being able to see the humor in it all. Its tough to have a sense of humor about your choice.

Good job, now let's get back to beating each other over the head about why Republicans are the devil and Democrats are satan!!!

Thunderland #27]
There was an article in the paper here a few weeks ago by Rick Steelhammer saying that the last undecided voter in West Virginia had been found and was cornered in a hollow by both campaigns. It was the funniest thing I've read in a long while.

Please post a link to that. Sounds good..! :)

[Kaukolastan #28]
First off, let's be clear on this: I am a Bush supporter, and I will vote for him in November.

Now: WHY GOD WHY?

That debate was, although not attrocious, damn near close enough. There were many points when I wanted to jump at my TV screen, because I had a brilliant riposte for Kerry's comments, but all Bush offered was, "This is hard work."

I know, I know, one of the points of a debate is to "hammer home" a point. However, I think the message that "Kerry is a flip-flopper" and "I am strong" got pounded in by question number three. By the half-hour mark, I was holding my head in my hands, hoping and praying that he wouldn't answer with the same sound bite to every question. My prayers were ignored.

Also, in addition to the lack of variance in the answers, there was that horrifying blank stare... the kind a cow gives as a train bears down on it. He would ask for a response, and I would perk up, hoping maybe to hear, "My opponent states that I sent in the troops without body armor, when in fact it was he who voted against the bill to provide for these systems." But instead, Bush dropped the ball, stared at the screen haplessly, and then repeated, "I am strong, he is a flip-flopper."

I proceeded to get trashed on cheap liquor.

Don't get me wrong, I love Bush, I love his policies, but God damn, did he get stuffed last night. He got a few good zingers off on Kerry, but the Senator was obviously the better wordsmith. I don't know what happened out there. Looking at the President's websites and campaign pamphlets, there is tons of information he could have smashed Kerry flat with. At many points, I could have smacked the Senator down, and I'm just a polisci student! But last night, Bush stalled out, and Kerry was on top of the ball.

Oh, and if I were a liberal partisan, instead of a conservative, I would be all over the part where the President said, "I know Iraq attacked us... I mean Saddam... I mean bin Laden." In fact, I expect to see that exact moment, spliced with the God-forsaken silences, to pop up on MoveOn.org sometime in the next two weeks. In fact, if they drop that ball, I'd find them lacking. Thank God I'm not on the other side, or I'd have a field day.

Peace and Hair Grease,
K-stan

Bingo..! Incredible wasn't it..?! Remember Chandler's whiney ex-girlfriend...

OHHHH MYYYYY GAAAAAAAAAAAAWD..!!

Why the "horrifying blank stare", see my answer to that in post 16 (this thread) (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7150450&postcount=16).

As I've also said previously in this thread, there'd better be some SERIOUS MONDO-BITCHSLAPPIN' goin' on at the Bush offices today..!!

On a side note, I'd like to thank Iakeokeo for being able to see the humor in it all. Its tough to have a sense of humor about your choice.

Good job, now let's get back to beating each other over the head about why Republicans are the devil and Democrats are satan!!!

ROFL

Remember, there are two kinds of lies. Small lies, and statistics. :D

Also, did you hear? Bush got a mail from the post office which siad that there is a package there from Kerry with Bush's ass inside. :D

First off, let's be clear on this: I am a Bush supporter, and I will vote for him in November.

Now: WHY GOD WHY?

That debate was, although not attrocious, damn near close enough. There were many points when I wanted to jump at my TV screen, because I had a brilliant riposte for Kerry's comments, but all Bush offered was, "This is hard work."

Maybe you should replace Dubya on the Republican ticket. Not very promising if people sitting around at home could come up with better ripostes than our current President could manage.

[Thunderland #32]
On a side note, I'd like to thank Iakeokeo for being able to see the humor in it all. Its tough to have a sense of humor about your choice.

Good job, now let's get back to beating each other over the head about why Republicans are the devil and Democrats are satan!!!

Heh he he he he...!!

You know as well as I do that it's not the choice that is humorous, it's the idiotic behavior of one screwed up little man in front of the camera that is so damned hilarious.

I make a distinction between "Bush", the dude, and the Bush administration.

Nothing whatsoever will dissuade me from my choice between the administrations being offered in this election.

But, Jesus freakin' holy grandmother's sacred nighty of wholesomeness..!

Who the hell "prepared" George for that massacre,.. and why is their semi-conscious flayed carcass not hanging in the Blue Room awaiting the derision of tourists and staff alike...?

HUH..!?

And you also know that while Republicans ARE indeed the Devil (or more properly the Devil's spawn), Democrates are simply the lesser but MUCH more populous demons that do the Devil's spawn's menial chores,... right?

It's a family thing.... :D

If we were more manueverable, we'd REALLY be dangerous.

Which is the entire point of being a "rightist" (conservative), such as myself. Slow change is good. Fast change is bad. Once a course is chosen, continue it to completion, even if some of the aspects of it are discovered to be objectionable. Make minor adjustments, not major ones. Act from base principles, not from fad or fashion.

Once a course is chosen, complete it. Sure. But please, for love of country, make sure you've got the facts straight and a strategy in place FIRST. Good grief! I don't think acting from base principles is the answer, though... I think you should act based on real evidence, formulate a real plan, then act.

I agree with the "unarmed man" analogy.

But the weird part is that Kerry has already mopped the floor with Bush, and he'll probably use more Floorshine in the next debates, but it may not hurt Georgy at all.

And that's really sad... it worries me that the citizens of the US aren't at all concerned with the fact that the man in power doesn't have all his synapses firing properly. Eek.

It won't sway folks like me away from Bush (in fact it will energize the "Bushies" because their misunderstood guy is being "picked on"), and it won't move the non-existant "undecideds" (I content there are none and even the ones that "self-identified" as undecided only moved to Kerry in part and not en masse [I expected a 100% shift to Kerry]).

Picked on... but is is founded? Does it make sense? Are there facts behind it? Why would you elect someone to protect the country who can't even argue his way out of a paper bag when some really serious allegations are at hand? Don't try to protect the mindless. We really shouldn't keep him in office because we feel sorry for him. That's just twisted.

It's beyond bizarre to me that these so-called "undecideds" aren't entirely Kerry. I see that as a death knell to the Kerry campaign.

They will be... they're just waiting for all the facts. You're also forgetting that the current polls only call registered voters who have voted in prior elections. Registration of new democratic voters surpasses the republicans by almost 1,000 (being very conservative with the numbers here...). And we haven't even figured in Independents who won't vote Bush... We're not dead yet.

y'all are funny, i havent enjoyed a thread this much in a long time

so when the president of the united states does a bad job in a debate, do his coaches YELL at him afterwards?? is that allowed? do they smack him as if he were a bad dog? do they have to pretend that he kicked ass?

i really didnt think he did such a bad job. in the end, you could tell what each man will do if he is president in january. isnt that the important thing? bush's lack of eloquent answers doesnt change what his policies are. if you like what he has done in the war on terror, you vote for him. if you dont, you are now probably not terrified of the thought of voting for kerry.

did anyone else think that it looked like kerry and a pet monkey on the stage?

My take on the "horrifying blank stare"...

George was wondering if there was any wisdom he could use from "My Pet Goat" and why he left that delightful little book in the elementary school classroom.

y'all are funny, i havent enjoyed a thread this much in a long time

so when the president of the united states does a bad job in a debate, do his coaches YELL at him afterwards?? is that allowed? do they smack him as if he were a bad dog? do they have to pretend that he kicked ass?

i really didnt think he did such a bad job. in the end, you could tell what each man will do if he is president in january. isnt that the important thing? bush's lack of eloquent answers doesnt change what his policies are. if you like what he has done in the war on terror, you vote for him. if you dont, you are now probably not terrified of the thought of voting for kerry.

did anyone else think that it looked like kerry and a pet monkey on the stage?

To answer your first questions... the coaches use rolled up newspaper. It doesn't hurt too much, but it makes an intimidating noise when you get bonked on the nose by it.

Second, I don't like what he's done with the war, so I'm voting Kerry. I think you made an excellent point there.

Third, yes, it looked like Kerry and a pet monkey looking for "My Pet Goat" to read while he was waiting for his turn to "speak" (I use the term loosely).

[Riven Dell #39]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
If we were more manueverable, we'd REALLY be dangerous.

Which is the entire point of being a "rightist" (conservative), such as myself. Slow change is good. Fast change is bad. Once a course is chosen, continue it to completion, even if some of the aspects of it are discovered to be objectionable. Make minor adjustments, not major ones. Act from base principles, not from fad or fashion.

Once a course is chosen, complete it. Sure. But please, for love of country, make sure you've got the facts straight and a strategy in place FIRST. Good grief! I don't think acting from base principles is the answer, though... I think you should act based on real evidence, formulate a real plan, then act.

Wouldn't perfect knowledge be a wonderful thing. I agree,.. have perfect knowledge before doing anything. That would solve SO many problems.

You misunderstand what "base principles" means. Think a little harder.

Quote:
I agree with the "unarmed man" analogy.

But the weird part is that Kerry has already mopped the floor with Bush, and he'll probably use more Floorshine in the next debates, but it may not hurt Georgy at all.

And that's really sad... it worries me that the citizens of the US aren't at all concerned with the fact that the man in power doesn't have all his synapses firing properly. Eek.

We're not concerned with it because the president is such a trivial aspect of the US government. It's the Administration that is the imortant portion, and the choice of administrations is rather a clear choice for veritably all of us.

Quote:
It won't sway folks like me away from Bush (in fact it will energize the "Bushies" because their misunderstood guy is being "picked on"), and it won't move the non-existant "undecideds" (I content there are none and even the ones that "self-identified" as undecided only moved to Kerry in part and not en masse [I expected a 100% shift to Kerry]).

Picked on... but is is founded? Does it make sense? Are there facts behind it? Why would you elect someone to protect the country who can't even argue his way out of a paper bag when some really serious allegations are at hand? Don't try to protect the mindless. We really shouldn't keep him in office because we feel sorry for him. That's just twisted.

See previous portion about "Administrations".

Quote:
It's beyond bizarre to me that these so-called "undecideds" aren't entirely Kerry. I see that as a death knell to the Kerry campaign.

They will be... they're just waiting for all the facts. You're also forgetting that the current polls only call registered voters who have voted in prior elections. Registration of new democratic voters surpasses the republicans by almost 1,000 (being very conservative with the numbers here...). And we haven't even figured in Independents who won't vote Bush... We're not dead yet.

Perhaps. :D

I'll believe the "just waiting for all the facts" part when I see it.

Once again, my prime contention here is that given this obvious complete failure of George to pull off a simple "debate", the "facts" are already in, and George flunked it SO badly that he can't possibly do any worse, or look any more idiotic than he does now.

Yet,... see the previous part above regarding "Administrations".

:)

[Ashmoria #40]
y'all are funny, i havent enjoyed a thread this much in a long time

so when the president of the united states does a bad job in a debate, do his coaches YELL at him afterwards?? is that allowed? do they smack him as if he were a bad dog? do they have to pretend that he kicked ass?

i really didnt think he did such a bad job. in the end, you could tell what each man will do if he is president in january. isnt that the important thing? bush's lack of eloquent answers doesnt change what his policies are. if you like what he has done in the war on terror, you vote for him. if you dont, you are now probably not terrified of the thought of voting for kerry.

did anyone else think that it looked like kerry and a pet monkey on the stage?

Hopefully the COACHES are caged somewhere deep within the west wing and permitted to eat their own entrails.

Actually it looked like Lurch and a well clad Chimp on the stage to me.

:D

I'll believe the "just waiting for all the facts" part when I see it.

Once again, my prime contention here is that given this obvious complete failure of George to pull off a simple "debate", the "facts" are already in, and George flunked it SO badly that he can't possibly do any worse, or look any more idiotic than he does now.

Yet,... see the previous part above regarding "Administrations".

And the cabinet? Doesn't he get to appoint them? IF they're appointed members of the government, the president himself DOES make a bigger difference than you're giving him credit for. He can also declare war without the support of the senate for 30 days (after which, the senate may determine that ducking out would just make things uglier, as they generally do). Ashcroft, Rove, Norton, Card, Leavitt, Griles, Mueller, Abraham, Connaughton, Graham, Chalabi, Hadley, Reynolds, "Rummy" (Rumsfeld), Wolfowitz, Rice, Ridge, Feith, Perle, Abrams, Cambone, Bremmer, Boykin, Marshall, Cheney, Libby, Hughes, Tenet, Gonzalez, McCallum, Haynes, Paige, Nasios, Lay, Powell, Chao, Armitage, Snow, Evans, Bolten, Mankiw, Racicot, Bolton, Negroponte, Veneman... are they all quallified individuals? Probably not. Will several of them be replaced if Kerry is elected? Sure.

That's why I'm voting Kerry. It's not just the president, it's his little medicine cabinet as well.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who has a rational opinion that Bush got trounced. Simply not in the same intellectual league as Kerry. Frankly, he could do nothing but repeat his own soundbytes, relevant or not.

He just doesn't have the goods.

Now, there may well be a certain amount of sympathy in the polls from people who want things simple and don't want to think too hard, or don't want to admit a mistake, or feel like the 'liberals' are showing them up intellectually in uncomfortable ways, and thus identify with Bush's stumblings, but...

Face to face, it just doesn't work to claim that Kerry is going to surrender in the war on terror. Doesn't work for Bush to claim to be 'stronger' and more committed. The debate format makes it abundantly clear. All Bush has is some pretested soundbytes and a crafted image to refer to.

Now, it's possible this won't translate into votes, ..it won't change the minds of those convinced by mere repetition that Bush is all about God and safety against the spectre of terror...

But I'm pretty sure anyone who actually wanted to make a decision based on seeing these guys in action is going to come out for Kerry. This is a big morale victory for the Democratic side. Basically, he held the line on foreign policy, even if a lot of voters don't *understand* quite how he won on substance.

Kerry's just gonna clean up from here, on the debates.

And the cabinet? Doesn't he get to appoint them? IF they're appointed members of the government, the president himself DOES make a bigger difference than you're giving him credit for. He can also declare war without the support of the senate for 30 days (after which, the senate may determine that ducking out would just make things uglier, as they generally do). Ashcroft, Rove, Norton, Card, Leavitt, Griles, Mueller, Abraham, Connaughton, Graham, Chalabi, Hadley, Reynolds, "Rummy" (Rumsfeld), Wolfowitz, Rice, Ridge, Feith, Perle, Abrams, Cambone, Bremmer, Boykin, Marshall, Cheney, Libby, Hughes, Tenet, Gonzalez, McCallum, Haynes, Paige, Nasios, Lay, Powell, Chao, Armitage, Snow, Evans, Bolten, Mankiw, Racicot, Bolton, Negroponte, Veneman... are they all quallified individuals? Probably not. Will several of them be replaced if Kerry is elected? Sure.

That's why I'm voting Kerry. It's not just the president, it's his little medicine cabinet as well.


i agree completely. this administration needs to be held accountable for what they've done for the last 4 years. john ashcroft and his Patriot Act virtually pissed all over the Constitution. rumsfeld has taken little to no responsibility for the prison abuse scandal. bush, as evident by last night's debate, is a flippin moron. and cheney, the man who's really running the country, helped out his former employer with a no-bid contract for work in iraq, for which haliburton has been accused of over-charging the government.

i still trust colin powell, but thats about it. the rest of the administration needs to go.

What bothers me is Kerry has the humanity and personality of a used car salesman. Coming from the wrong side of the tracks, the first thing you feel when seeing someone like Kerry is the creeps, and always keep your eye on him, never trust him. And the whole "I would call a summit" crap is a barely funny joke, more useless UN style bureaucratic do nothings babbling useless platitudes accomplishing nothing but making France and Germany feel better. Which is about as high on the priority list as North Dakota is in the electoral college.

And Bush is just not very bright, flat out. kind of scary, really.

Which leaves me where i started, trying to decide which evil is lesser.

I think the republicans are learning a lesson. trotting out their neighborhood friendly nice boy and trying to make him presidential will eventually fail. The more they move to the right, the less intellectual they are going to present themselves as. Of course, the Left is so disorganized and clinging to a Marx influenced economic collectivism that has failed so often and so miserably show they are not quite bright, ignorant, or insane. I swear, i never thought i would say this, but i am sort of missing Clinton.....he seemed at least reasonable, once his leftist wife was muzzled by her miserable health care reform failure.....

this election is just making me depressed.

I agree with you... Iraq is one of Kerry's weakest platforms at the moment, and he still managed to pull ahead of Bush (the numbers in my state have things overwhelmingly in Kerry's favor for the undecided voters, by the way). We've still got domestic policy, and that's where Kerry's going to start mopping the floor with Bush.

It's almost not fair, though... it was like watching a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Ouch.

Hello again Riven.:)
Just to mention this, radio station here today called up a hundred people, with the intent of making fun of the pollsters...
They got 62 Bush, 38 Kerry, not what they were expecting so they quit..kinda made me mad they quit, I was rolling over laughing.

[Riven Dell #45]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I'll believe the "just waiting for all the facts" part when I see it.

Once again, my prime contention here is that given this obvious complete failure of George to pull off a simple "debate", the "facts" are already in, and George flunked it SO badly that he can't possibly do any worse, or look any more idiotic than he does now.

Yet,... see the previous part above regarding "Administrations".

And the cabinet? Doesn't he get to appoint them? IF they're appointed members of the government, the president himself DOES make a bigger difference than you're giving him credit for. He can also declare war without the support of the senate for 30 days (after which, the senate may determine that ducking out would just make things uglier, as they generally do). Ashcroft, Rove, Norton, Card, Leavitt, Griles, Mueller, Abraham, Connaughton, Graham, Chalabi, Hadley, Reynolds, "Rummy" (Rumsfeld), Wolfowitz, Rice, Ridge, Feith, Perle, Abrams, Cambone, Bremmer, Boykin, Marshall, Cheney, Libby, Hughes, Tenet, Gonzalez, McCallum, Haynes, Paige, Nasios, Lay, Powell, Chao, Armitage, Snow, Evans, Bolten, Mankiw, Racicot, Bolton, Negroponte, Veneman... are they all quallified individuals? Probably not. Will several of them be replaced if Kerry is elected? Sure.

That's why I'm voting Kerry. It's not just the president, it's his little medicine cabinet as well.

And that's precisely correct. I prefer one group,.. you prefer the other.

What is your point here, other than to show your vast superiority in typing lists of names..?

:D

You know, personally, I'm tired of the claims that, basically, educated people from the Northeast lack *humanity* because the region has a different standard of body language and expressiveness.

No, Kerry's not the life-of-the-party type. He's not going to affect malapropisms to seem more down-home. A certain amount of reserve is considered appropriate in the place we're both from.

The fact is, people are *taught* that this makes, say, Bostonians, less sincere or real than people in, say, Athens, Georgia. That's why conventional wisdom is that only Southern Democrats are electable.

Frankly, what it is is 'cultural' bias. Regionalism. It's people saying "He acts differently from you, therefore he's not human."

I got some news for you, by the way.
Bush isn't a Texan, he's a rich kid from a Connecticut family with connections that go back to Prescott Bush and some very very naughty dealings with the Nazi party.

(no, that's not conspiracy theory. Public record.)

y'all are funny, i havent enjoyed a thread this much in a long time

so when the president of the united states does a bad job in a debate, do his coaches YELL at him afterwards?? is that allowed? do they smack him as if he were a bad dog? do they have to pretend that he kicked ass?

i really didnt think he did such a bad job. in the end, you could tell what each man will do if he is president in january. isnt that the important thing? bush's lack of eloquent answers doesnt change what his policies are. if you like what he has done in the war on terror, you vote for him. if you dont, you are now probably not terrified of the thought of voting for kerry.

did anyone else think that it looked like kerry and a pet monkey on the stage?
The main thing is Kerry is a Senator, who is so used to being able to give a long winded speech on ANYTHING that in the senate it is accepted tactic to speak until you bore everyone into leaving. Bush is not a speaker, I thought he did horribly last night, but his administration is still better, his ideals , etc. in my view anyhow. I do sort of wish he would drop some of the baggage however(Rummsfeld and Wolfowitz.ahem)

You know, personally, I'm tired of the claims that, basically, educated people from the Northeast lack *humanity* because the region has a different standard of body language and expressiveness.

No, Kerry's not the life-of-the-party type. He's not going to affect malapropisms to seem more down-home. A certain amount of reserve is considered appropriate in the place we're both from.

The fact is, people are *taught* that this makes, say, Bostonians, less sincere or real than people in, say, Athens, Georgia. That's why conventional wisdom is that only Southern Democrats are electable.

Frankly, what it is is 'cultural' bias. Regionalism. It's people saying "He acts differently from you, therefore he's not human."

I got some news for you, by the way.
Bush isn't a Texan, he's a rich kid from a Connecticut family with connections that go back to Prescott Bush and some very very naughty dealings with the Nazi party.

(no, that's not conspiracy theory. Public record.)

It is also public record that FDR was involved in the same dealings, along with Kennedy Sr, then ambassador...these are irrelevant to TODAYS Kennedy's or Bush's or Dems or Republicans. Hell, Lincoln(Republican)freed the slaves while Dems wanted a war to keep the practice alive...Let's not play dig up irrelevant past history ;)

[Kinsella Islands #46]
It's pretty obvious to anyone who has a rational opinion that Bush got trounced. Simply not in the same intellectual league as Kerry. Frankly, he could do nothing but repeat his own soundbytes, relevant or not.

He just doesn't have the goods.

Now, there may well be a certain amount of sympathy in the polls from people who want things simple and don't want to think too hard, or don't want to admit a mistake, or feel like the 'liberals' are showing them up intellectually in uncomfortable ways, and thus identify with Bush's stumblings, but...

Face to face, it just doesn't work to claim that Kerry is going to surrender in the war on terror. Doesn't work for Bush to claim to be 'stronger' and more committed. The debate format makes it abundantly clear. All Bush has is some pretested soundbytes and a crafted image to refer to.

Now, it's possible this won't translate into votes, ..it won't change the minds of those convinced by mere repetition that Bush is all about God and safety against the spectre of terror...

But I'm pretty sure anyone who actually wanted to make a decision based on seeing these guys in action is going to come out for Kerry. This is a big morale victory for the Democratic side. Basically, he held the line on foreign policy, even if a lot of voters don't *understand* quite how he won on substance.

Kerry's just gonna clean up from here, on the debates.



.."He just doesn't have the goods."..

But "the goods" are not what people are using to decide with.

.."Now, it's possible this won't translate into votes, ..it won't change the minds of those convinced by mere repetition that Bush is all about God and safety against the spectre of terror...
But I'm pretty sure anyone who actually wanted to make a decision based on seeing these guys in action is going to come out for Kerry."..

I agree that it might sway those that are basing their vote on the "intellectual debatesmanship" of the pair toward Kerry, but I personally believe that all those that would do so are already commited to Kerry anyway.

I would certainly vote for Kerry if glibness and total domination of a debating opponent was my criterion for POTUS.

But the "I HATE KERRY" contingent is just as immovable as the "I HATE BUSH" bunch.

Whether you consider this "wrong" and irrational, or a matter of "let's see what the guy I like will do next", is the description of your position in this election.

Let's see what November brings. :D

.."Kerry's just gonna clean up from here, on the debates."..

That could well be, though I'd LOVE to know what's going on behind the scenes at the Bush place..! Heh he he he he he...!

Lot's of blood and pain, I would think. :D

Hey, CanuckHeaven, could you tone down the size of that signature? It's blindingly OMGZ HUGE!

;)
Well.....it is kinda meant to be HUGE, to remind people that Bush has failed on this war against terrorists. He stated that Bin Laden was America's #1 Priority and what did he do? He quit, gave up, or at least slid Bin Laden over to the back burner. Why? Well of course there was more important fish to fry in Iraq, even though Iraq, had nothing to do with 9/11.

Somehow, the toothless tabby Saddam was a MORE serious threat to the US than Bin Laden? 150,000 troops in Iraq, and only 15,000 in afghanistan and I think Kerry drove that point home succinctly last night. Meanwhile, terrorist attacks have increased SINCE Saddam has been captured, as if Saddam had anything to do with that?

Well, claims about the Kennedys or Lincoln *aren't* relevant, though what is relevant is that Bush isn't what he presents himself as, and, well, what about his continuation of his daddy's policies for a 'New World Order?'


The Republican party of Lincoln is not the Republican party of today. Actually, it was the liberal party of the time. The two parties were basically the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

The latter party *divided* when the Federalist party waned, and the original associations were that the Republicans were the more liberal wing of that schism. These things flipped over in time for complex reasons.

If you're going to cite Lincoln as a Republican, that bit of history is *very* relevant.

(Not trying to Thread-jack this, but gotta respond.)

Oh, I don't care about the content, or the views presented. I just hate signatures that take up more space than the average post length.
Discounting posts consisting of "Yes", "No", or a string of smileys, strapped together by a drunken monkey.

It hurts to see a two line post and a ten line signature.

Hey, can we get back onto the debate over the debate? Not about who is evil, who is God's Chosen One, or about why Rumsfeld sold his soul for an ice cream cone. I don't want to see a potentially semi-humorous talk about the debate turn into another political sludge-pit.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who has a rational opinion that Bush got trounced. Simply not in the same intellectual league as Kerry. Frankly, he could do nothing but repeat his own soundbytes, relevant or not.

He just doesn't have the goods.

Now, there may well be a certain amount of sympathy in the polls from people who want things simple and don't want to think too hard, or don't want to admit a mistake, or feel like the 'liberals' are showing them up intellectually in uncomfortable ways, and thus identify with Bush's stumblings, but...

Face to face, it just doesn't work to claim that Kerry is going to surrender in the war on terror. Doesn't work for Bush to claim to be 'stronger' and more committed. The debate format makes it abundantly clear. All Bush has is some pretested soundbytes and a crafted image to refer to.

Now, it's possible this won't translate into votes, ..it won't change the minds of those convinced by mere repetition that Bush is all about God and safety against the spectre of terror...

But I'm pretty sure anyone who actually wanted to make a decision based on seeing these guys in action is going to come out for Kerry. This is a big morale victory for the Democratic side. Basically, he held the line on foreign policy, even if a lot of voters don't *understand* quite how he won on substance.

Kerry's just gonna clean up from here, on the debates.
its my theory that those who thought bush kicked ass had a thought process like this:

*squinting at the tv screen* "oh thats the guy the vietnam vets hate, he sucks"
"i wish *I* had a pet monkey"

Well, claims about the Kennedys or Lincoln *aren't* relevant, though what is relevant is that Bush isn't what he presents himself as, and, well, what about his continuation of his daddy's policies for a 'New World Order?'


The Republican party of Lincoln is not the Republican party of today. Actually, it was the liberal party of the time. The two parties were basically the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

The latter party *divided* when the Federalist party waned, and the original associations were that the Republicans were the more liberal wing of that schism. These things flipped over in time for complex reasons.

If you're going to cite Lincoln as a Republican, that bit of history is *very* relevant.
Everyone, except maybe some Dems trying to steal the thunder so to speak, pretty much know Lincoln was a Republican. Hell, in school, I remember he was the first in the list with an (R) by his name. The same party that nominated and elected him, was the same party that nominated and elected his VP, the next president when he was assasinated. This same party, continued with the Republican presidents after him. Yes, it was "liberal" at that time, as in, a new idea. Not liberal as in "left". I am quite familiar with the, as I said, irrelevant history. I merely brought it on because your post out of nowhere, instead of just saying"Bush is not a Texan" which would have been in context with the rest of your post, you instead could not resist inputting insignificant historical family context, which ran at the same time as the one which then I put in, as they, and MANY Americans from the NE *AT THAT TIME* were, indeed, at least partially sympathetic to the German cause, possibly going back to lingering resentment of the British at that time in some old families. Where the man's ancestors stood on any issue however, is no indication of where he stands. I happen to be a Kennedy fan, despite knowing full well where HIS ancestors stood.
And just for clarity-in Lincoln's election year, it was the Democrats, the Souther Dems(that party split) and the Republicans..public info, easily obtainable, I just did ;)

its my theory that those who thought bush kicked ass had a thought process like this:

*squinting at the tv screen* "oh thats the guy the vietnam vets hate, he sucks"
"i wish *I* had a pet monkey"

HEH HE HE HE HE HE...!!!

Very good..! :D

its my theory that those who thought bush kicked ass had a thought process like this:

*squinting at the tv screen* "oh thats the guy the vietnam vets hate, he sucks"
"i wish *I* had a pet monkey"

Also a guy most of todays military would find poisonous.

CNN said Kerry speaks at a 10th grade level and dubya at a 6th grade level.

Obviously dumbya is going for the very lowest common denominator. He's already got all the redneck bigots sewn up. Now he's after all the dumba$$es.

In the U$A that could be a majority.

George, that was atrocious..! But....

Even with the most incredibly awful presentation I've EVER seen by a public official, many "undecideds" are STILL on George's side..

WHAT in god's name is that about..!?

According to that "snap" poll from CBS, only 50% of "undecideds" thought that Kerry came off looking better in the debate.

HOW on earth is that possible..?

I would expect 110% of any group to believe that Kerry came off better than George in that debate.

What this is telling me is that there is absolutely no hope for Kerry, as after this complete trouncing, George is STILL capable of holding his (majority) constituency as well as getting a portion of the "undecideds".

What do you say to the obvious overwhelming victor of a battle (Kerry) who discovers that he's valiantly and gloriously conquered a large dung heap..!?

(( I am a rabid Bush supporter, by the way, and see this all as lovely fortune for "my side", but the weirdness of it all has just stunned me to the core. ))

Dont listen to him Democrats, hes trying to get our moral out of whack, he wants us to think we will lose, or we have no chance, so why vote? Its his little plan!

OK,... so who is going to be the first to do an overdub of that incredible debate in the vein of "What's Up Tigerlily?"

Let's have some sample dialogue.

I imagine Comedy Central is slaving away on this as we speak....!

:D

Dont listen to him Democrats, hes trying to get our moral out of whack, he wants us to think we will lose, or we have no chance, so why vote? Its his little plan!

I kind of get the impression that's what alot of Dems are doing ;)
Seriously, whoever does win, I hope everybody who can, VOTES...it is a disgrace when one of the founding democracies of the modern world, turns out 50% vote.

CNN said Kerry speaks at a 10th grade level and dubya at a 6th grade level.

Obviously dumbya is going for the very lowest common denominator. He's already got all the redneck bigots sewn up. Now he's after all the dumba$$es.

In the U$A that could be a majority.

Most of the CNN reporters I have met or heard seem pretty much at a 3rd or 4th grade level themselves without a prompter. So pretty sure BOTH candidates have them beat.

We're not concerned with it because the president is such a trivial aspect of the US government. It's the Administration that is the imortant portion, and the choice of administrations is rather a clear choice for veritably all of us.

Sure, the President is just a trivial aspect of the government. Lets just elect a chimpanzee to be our next President. Maybe a gorilla. As long as it can write something that resembles a signature and was born in the US. And that way, if the monkey screws up we can all just pass it off since they don't know any better. Maybe the monkey President could go on TV, make some cute faces to smooth over our international relations too.

Seriously, whoever does win, I hope everybody who can, VOTES...it is a disgrace when the founding democracy of the modern world, turns out 50% vote.
I agree with you. However, how do you equate the US to the founding democracy of the modern world? Surely there were democracy before the US. The britsh for example, had a rather democratic system in place by the time the US was founded.

I kind of get the impression that's what alot of Dems are doing ;)
Seriously, whoever does win, I hope everybody who can, VOTES...it is a disgrace when the founding democracy of the modern world, turns out 50% vote.

Hear, hear! Vote! Vote, vote!!

I agree with you. However, how do you equate the US to the founding democracy of the modern world? Surely there were democracy before the US. The britsh for example, had a rather democratic system in place by the time the US was founded.

Except with regards to their colonies... we didn't have any colonies until fairly recently (historically speaking).

I agree with you. However, how do you equate the US to the founding democracy of the modern world? Surely there were democracy before the US. The britsh for example, had a rather democratic system in place by the time the US was founded.

True, maybe in Britain itself, however, if it was great, we would have stayed in the Empire probably.

True, maybe in Britain itself, however, if it was great, we would have stayed in the Empire probably.
My point being that the US is not the first democracy of the modern world. I applaud your patriotism, but please, you don't have to ignore historic facts to be proud of the US.

My point being that the US is not the first democracy of the modern world. I applaud your patriotism, but please, you don't have to ignore historic facts to be proud of the US.

Touche'
I withdraw that portion of my comment. :)

Touche'
I withdraw that portion of my comment. :)
:eek: :p

I didn't know when the debates were on, so I didn't watch them. But 100% of the rest of my class said that basically, Kerry handed Dubya his ass on a platter.

Je n'aime pas de tout Doubleve, ainsi je suis tres content!

Je n'aime pas de tout Doubleve, ainsi je suis tres content!

*laughs hysterically for a few minutes*

C'est tres humeureux. J'aime beaucoup votre francais!

*laughs hysterically for a few minutes*

C'est tres humeureux. J'aime beaucoup votre francais!
Tu plaisantes, ou quoi?

Tu plaisantes, ou quoi?

Non, j'etude francais quatre ans. Deux au lycee. Deux a l'universaire aux etats unis. Je ne parle pas francais beaucoup ou bien, mais je comprend le langue.

And, I think I'll switch back to English now as most of the people on this board seem to speak that primarily. :)

Uhh... I don't actually speak French yet. That sentence was merely the product of the first three weeks of a beginning French class. So I only vaguely understand the rest of it. Someone said I was funny, someone asked a question, and I think the third comment said it was four o'clock in France, which makes me think the question was asking if I was up late or something like that. I know it was an either-or question, at least...

I could put it all through the Google translator, but that would be cheating.

Its not the use of French, its the use of advanced tenses that you should avoid (because in that case even a translator will have problems).

But getting back to the main point...

The really sad thing is that news agencies keep claiming "The debate was fairly equal."

Then you glance at their online polls, and see 88% saying Kerry won (CNN earlier today...over with over 5 times as many for Kerry as for Bush, not mentioning the marginal equal column)

Let's see... I asked if Riven Dell was joking because I didn't think Zincite's statement was all that funny, and he replied that "No, I've studied French for four year. Two in high school. Two in a college in the US. I don't speak French a lot or well, but I understand the language." Yeah. I've studied it five years and am not all that much better.

Er, yeah. We be majorly off topic. I'm shutting up now.

The really sad thing is that news agencies keep claiming "The debate was fairly equal."
New agencies have been saying the race is tied since the beginning of this year, when Bush was ahead... then Kerry pulled up and passed him in the polls... a few weeks ago Bush pulled ahead again (if you can believe polling agencies). Conclusion, the media really doesn't have a clue what it's talking about.

Well, to be fair to Bush, he did damn well in the first half. To be honest, that debate went about 30 minutes too long for him. To be completely honest, Bush got whipped after the 45 minute mark, and they were pretty even till then. However, Bush was never a senator and never got so much into the debate scene as Kerry either. Anyways, I am as thrilled as Iakeokeo that Bush sucked it up, and still actually gained a little bit less than a point (Kerry remained unchanged, thus I guess that this addition came from someone who supported Nader before the debate started, and then came out in favor of Bush after it was over.

My guess about why Bush wasn't absolutely caned in the polls is that ppl seem to be so forgiving of him. He WAS atrocious and must apologists say "Oh but you know, he's not that good a public speaker.You have to remember that Kerry's a very good speaker" SFW! If Kerry had been that bad, he would have been nailed upside down a tree. It's incredible. Bush has somehow tapped into the forgiveness part of Americans. They forgive and indulge him no matter how many slip-ups and snafus he does. Kind of like you'd do to a not-to-bright young boy always accidently getting into trouble due to clumsiness and being unable seeing the consequences of his actions. ;)

My guess about why Bush wasn't absolutely caned in the polls is that ppl seem to be so forgiving of him. He WAS atrocious and must apologists say "Oh but you know, he's not that good a public speaker.You have to remember that Kerry's a very good speaker" SFW! If Kerry had been that bad, he would have been nailed upside down a tree. It's incredible. Bush has somehow tapped into the forgiveness part of Americans. They forgive and indulge him no matter how many slip-ups and snafus he does. Kind of like you'd do to a not-to-bright young boy always accidently getting into trouble due to clumsiness and being unable seeing the consequences of his actions. ;)

Actually, most of Bush's supporters are not overly anal about the debates anyway. We already know what the sitting president's position on things is, we have had 4 years to know, it is Kerry who would NEED the debate to get his message out. Most Bush supporters support him due to belief in the direction we are going(No debates about this,PLEASE, there are hundreds of threads already, this is simply why we support the man) I have a feeling that this election year there really are no "undecideds" remaining, anyhow, not to say that some people may or may not change their mind, but at this point, right now, pretty much everyone at least thinks they have made up their mind, regardless of polls showing otherwise.

[Afkrutski #64]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
George, that was atrocious..! But....

Even with the most incredibly awful presentation I've EVER seen by a public official, many "undecideds" are STILL on George's side..

WHAT in god's name is that about..!?

According to that "snap" poll from CBS, only 50% of "undecideds" thought that Kerry came off looking better in the debate.

HOW on earth is that possible..?

I would expect 110% of any group to believe that Kerry came off better than George in that debate.

What this is telling me is that there is absolutely no hope for Kerry, as after this complete trouncing, George is STILL capable of holding his (majority) constituency as well as getting a portion of the "undecideds".

What do you say to the obvious overwhelming victor of a battle (Kerry) who discovers that he's valiantly and gloriously conquered a large dung heap..!?

(( I am a rabid Bush supporter, by the way, and see this all as lovely fortune for "my side", but the weirdness of it all has just stunned me to the core. ))

Dont listen to him Democrats, hes trying to get our moral out of whack, he wants us to think we will lose, or we have no chance, so why vote? Its his little plan!

You are, of course, absolutely correct..!

It IS my plan, as well as the plan of the vast Right-Wing-Conspiracy, to break the already weak and fractured moral of the vast Left-Wing-Conspiracy with statements such as "Bush is a massive debate LOSER.. but people still like him", and "Kerry triumphed over a boob for a dung-heap", and the like.

All of you so-called Kerry supporters should simply not bother going to the polls on election day because you've all been expunged from the voter lists anyway, and what's the sense of wasting all that gasoline or shoe leather when your vote is not going to count..?

Huh..!? :)

It is true that Bush was far worse that one time. While Kerry was covering both sides of his flip-flops, he did it in a way so that only an astute debator would notice. But Bush was just awful.
However, in hindsight, I am somewhat glad that he did loose. It sets the stage for a larger audience for their town hall debate, which Bush is comfortable doing. If he can pull it off, then the swing voters will flock to him. The third debate will merely exist in the land of pundits.

Kerry should have been going back at Bush about Bushs' flipflops, like how he was against using troops for nation building... before he was for it. Like how was was against dumping at Yukka mountain... before he allowed it. Like how... aww forget it just read the links in my signature.

i dont think so, Iakeokeo. i think that kerry still has a fighting chance, and that the next two debates are only going to boost him. i know a lot of people who dont normally vote, but are going to vote for kerry because of what bush has done. i dont know any people who dont normally vote that are going to go and vote for bush..besides, many partisans are actually switching, from what i see. quite a few people i know (read: republicans) are willing to go against their views for once and vote for kerry to make sure our country does not get ruined any further.
i think that most of the people nationwide who are voting democrat for the first time, or voting for the first time overall, are 18-25 year olds who are for once, concerned about the whole of the country. and it makes me proud :)

[R00fletrain #90]
i dont think so, Iakeokeo. i think that kerry still has a fighting chance, and that the next two debates are only going to boost him. i know a lot of people who dont normally vote, but are going to vote for kerry because of what bush has done. i dont know any people who dont normally vote that are going to go and vote for bush..besides, many partisans are actually switching, from what i see. quite a few people i know (read: republicans) are willing to go against their views for once and vote for kerry to make sure our country does not get ruined any further.
i think that most of the people nationwide who are voting democrat for the first time, or voting for the first time overall, are 18-25 year olds who are for once, concerned about the whole of the country. and it makes me proud :)

NO partisans are switching. See,.. I can make unfounded categorical statements as well..! :)

You put WAY to much faith in the college crowd. I do hope you're out there whipping up your fellow adolescents. Good luck to you on that.

And the shift key is just to either side of the "letter" keys, by the way. Use it. It makes you seem a bit less juvenile.

Best too you..! :D