It's true! Sad, huh?
-
skype = "adultdatelink" -
If he could pronounce the word debate.Originally posted by Colin
It's true! Sad, huh?
-
Wouldn't doubt it. Hes not the greatest speaker around, but he is very confident. People by human nature are drawn to that.
Bush made his biggest gains on Gore in the debates because Gore came off like a complete doofus.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a repeat of that when Kerry comes off like a smug elitist.Comment
-
With a bat maybe..
You've read it, you can't unread it.Comment
-
not with time to prepare and a list of topics he wouldn'tOriginally posted by Colin
It's true! Sad, huh?Comment
-
If anyone has the 2000 debates on tape I would like you to watch them. GWB didn't answer a single question and was owned by Gore on every single question. He would simply change the wording around and re-state the question differently. I watched every debate and was dumbfounded with his seemingly lack of knowledge of what was being discussed. Watch them again if you don't believe me. It's true.
Question: "Mr.Bush, how do you plan on fixing 'problem A' if you are elected to the whitehouse?"
GWB: "Well, you are correct. 'Problem A' is a serious problem in our society. The only way we can truly deal with 'Problem A' is to get to the bottom of what causes 'Problem A'. And the only way to do that is to take a good long look at 'Problem A' and analyzate what is the heart of the problem. I guarantee, however, if I am elected office, you will never hear of 'Problem A' again."
Watch the debates again and tell me that isn't dead on lol.
Comment
-
Bush was very honest in the debates!Originally posted by NickPapageorgio
If anyone has the 2000 debates on tape I would like you to watch them. GWB didn't answer a single question and was owned by Gore on every single question. He would simply change the wording around and re-state the question differently. I watched every debate and was dumbfounded with his seemingly lack of knowledge of what was being discussed. Watch them again if you don't believe me. It's true.
Question: "Mr.Bush, how do you plan on fixing 'problem A' if you are elected to the whitehouse?"
GWB: "Well, you are correct. 'Problem A' is a serious problem in our society. The only way we can truly deal with 'Problem A' is to get to the bottom of what causes 'Problem A'. And the only way to do that is to take a good long look at 'Problem A' and analyzate what is the heart of the problem. I guarantee, however, if I am elected office, you will never hear of 'Problem A' again."
Watch the debates again and tell me that isn't dead on lol.
LEHRER: Saddam Hussein, you mean?
BUSH: Yes.
LEHRER: You could get him out of there?
BUSH: I'd like to, of course.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
I highly doubt that that man could hold his own with a 2 year old.
Comment
-
I'm not suggesting he wasn't honest. I am simply saying he didn't answer any questions. When you don't know the answer you can't really lie about anything.Originally posted by Colin
Bush was very honest in the debates!
LEHRER: Saddam Hussein, you mean?
BUSH: Yes.
LEHRER: You could get him out of there?
BUSH: I'd like to, of course.
Comment
-
Probably...I suck at public speaking.Comment
-
And Gore didn't have too many bright moments either. Don't get me wrong. He just tried harder it seemed lol. Sad sad state of affairs.
Comment
-
I also remember Bush being embarassed by not knowing the names of foreign leaders. Since conservatives tend to pride themselves on their ignorance of the world around them this wasn't much of a surprise, but a Gore who was trying a little less to be 'likeable' could have jumped on this.
Bush wasn't a strong campaigner and he was a HORRIBLE debater, but Gore was constantly trying to 'loosen up' and was also trying hard to distance himself from Clinton, both strategies which later proved to be mistaken.
Also after the first debate, when he was calling Bush on his dimwittedness, the press made this HUGE stink about how mean he was being to poor GWB, so he deliberately backed off of any personal attacks in the following debates. Anyone who says the press is leftist is a blind monkey.Comment
-
yeah and he's a 'compassionate conservative', a uniter, not a divider, and he won't get us involved in any unnecessary conflicts. Also, no child will be left behind.Originally posted by Colin
Bush was very honest in the debates!
LEHRER: Saddam Hussein, you mean?
BUSH: Yes.
LEHRER: You could get him out of there?
BUSH: I'd like to, of course.
he's honest alright.Comment
-
I would be really surprised if Bush knew the meaning of most of those words he recites from his staff-written speechesOriginally posted by Colin
It's true! Sad, huh?
Comment
-
Name a topic Bush knows! LMAO!Originally posted by dig420
not with time to prepare and a list of topics he wouldn't
He couldn't debate his ass out of a paper bag without a prep team and a teleprompter.Comment
-
I suppose the topic is a better excuse than most here to start a thread. But it would be more sad if a pro politician, especially one who got to front as president, couldn't out-debate an average member of the public.Comment
-
He seems to have answered the questions to me.Originally posted by NickPapageorgio
I'm not suggesting he wasn't honest. I am simply saying he didn't answer any questions. When you don't know the answer you can't really lie about anything.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/...in240440.shtml
He answered questions about the IMF, third word debt, capital punishment, the legitimacy of using military power, Rwanda.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
lets not forget bush wasnt 'elected' president
he went to court and paid for it
the hun gets revenue from pre-paid gallery placements on the top 15 spaces and banners.
the rest of thegalleries are free placements.Comment
-
Good thing he has to debate John Kerry, and not one of us.
Comment
-
You need a head start?Originally posted by dig420
not with time to prepare and a list of topics he wouldn't.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
Kerry is an excellent debater. Much better than Gore was.Originally posted by Rich
Good thing he has to debate John Kerry, and not one of us.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
No. All candidates get the questions in advance most of the time, and I'm absolutely 100% sure that with time to prepare I can understand any topic in more depth and speak on it with more precision than your beloved cokehead rich-boy lifetime failure idiot-in-chief GWB.Originally posted by Colin
You need a head start?Comment
-
The simple fact that GWB got elected casts the Republican party and America in general in a negative light. What's this man ever done to deserve his position?Comment
-
Rich potheads don't like rich cokeheads? ;-)Originally posted by dig420
No. All candidates get the questions in advance most of the time, and I'm absolutely 100% sure that with time to prepare I can understand any topic in more depth and speak on it with more precision than your beloved cokehead rich-boy lifetime failure idiot-in-chief GWB.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
I'd bet my left nutsack that with equal preparation time, Danny would make GWB look like a confused child in a debate.Comment
-
Ahhh, sigh. More party politics. Most Republicans feel the same way about Clinton. All you're doing is saying you have chosen a team and that you like your team more than the other team.Originally posted by dig420
The simple fact that GWB got elected casts the Republican party and America in general in a negative light. What's this man ever done to deserve his position?
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
the very last line in farenheit 911 sums it all upComment
-
"The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He'd better not be or there's going to be a consequence, should I be the president. "
Interesting read. Just snipped a bit for illustrative purposes only.
Illustrative of what? Of the argument that planning for invading Iraq has always been a priority for this administration. Even when "We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction."
It's old and out of date obviously, but they've often argued that there was no plans to invade Iraq before 9/11. I think they were clearly.
Anywho, I dont care for Bushs' debating ability or style. He tends to come off as arrogant and beyond questioning when I see him speak. Usually I see him speaking before a military audience though, and not in any real debates. I'm looking forward to the debates!
You've read it, you can't unread it.Comment
-
MM IV?Originally posted by angelsofporn
the very last line in farenheit 911 sums it all up
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
My bathrobe hanging on a broomstick could beat W in a debate.
He speaks the way most people around here write and spell.War National Damn Champions EagleComment
-
That's true, Kerry is one of the best debaters I've seen in US politics. They're going to be hilarious this year, JFK vs GWB.Originally posted by Colin
Kerry is an excellent debater. Much better than Gore was.
Gore beat Bush in every debate I watched last year. Did anyone also watch news coverage after? Instead of showing Bush's responses and how poorly he did, they kept showing Gore's face looking annoyed or pissed off while Bush was talking. Good work CNN, we all know facial expressions are much, much more important that substance.Comment
-
Funny.Originally posted by Holly
He speaks the way most people around here write and spell.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
ok Colin, let's compare:Originally posted by Colin
Ahhh, sigh. More party politics. Most Republicans feel the same way about Clinton. All you're doing is saying you have chosen a team and that you like your team more than the other team.
Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar who raised himself up from the most humble beginnings to the most powerful office in the world on the strength of his own drive, determination and intellect. His Presidency was fabulously successful on just about every level, and the only thing the dirty-ass POS Repubs could get him on was getting a BJ in the Oval Office and MAN did they ever capitalize on that.
Compared to Bush?Comment
-
No. I'm saying that conservatives are anti-science, pro-religion, they are censorious and they are pushing for a police state. They are immoral and anti-american. That's what I'm saying.Originally posted by Colin
Ahhh, sigh. More party politics. Most Republicans feel the same way about Clinton. All you're doing is saying you have chosen a team and that you like your team more than the other team.Comment
-
Agreed on Kerry's ability.Originally posted by Rich
That's true, Kerry is one of the best debaters I've seen in US politics. They're going to be hilarious this year, JFK vs GWB.
Gore beat Bush in every debate I watched last year. Did anyone also watch news coverage after? Instead of showing Bush's responses and how poorly he did, they kept showing Gore's face looking annoyed or pissed off while Bush was talking. Good work CNN, we all know facial expressions are much, much more important that substance.
As far as Bush vs. Gore. In the first debate viewers thought Gore won 48-42% The second debate went to Bush 49-36%. The third debate was 46-44% in favor of Gore.
Bush was seen as more likeable 60-31% and saw Gore as articulating himself better 57-33%.
Bush held his own.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
I could do this myself but it's too easy. Ask a Republican. It's their team.Originally posted by dig420
ok Colin, let's compare:
Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar who raised himself up from the most humble beginnings to the most powerful office in the world on the strength of his own drive, determination and intellect. His Presidency was fabulously successful on just about every level, and the only thing the dirty-ass POS Repubs could get him on was getting a BJ in the Oval Office and MAN did they ever capitalize on that.
Compared to Bush?
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
lol, yes comparing Bush to Clinton in a logical way is very easy.....Originally posted by Colin
I could do this myself but it's too easy.
Good thing you left that one up to someone else.
Comment
-
Yes, it is too easy. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find ANYTHING - ANY area of life- in which Bush shows more excellence than Clinton. It's man against boy. Intellectual giant against backwards gnat. Why even make the attempt?Originally posted by Colin
I could do this myself but it's too easy. Ask a Republican. It's their team.Comment
-
Duh he just fucks up people mind and never answer any question .Originally posted by rayadp05Comment
-
First of all, I think Clinton was a fine president. I have always said that. But in this game we call politics it is easy to do what I am saying.Originally posted by Rich
lol, yes comparing Bush to Clinton in a logical way is very easy.....
Good thing you left that one up to someone else.
If you're a Democrat or a liberal, you take everything and twist it, conveniently leaving out all factual evidence against that particular point of view or dismiss it for some other innocuous reason. Republicans do the same thing. This is exactly what politics has become.
For example, a lot of Democrats like to say that Bush is ignoring the Constitution and has violated international law. These are the two most popular examples today. What they don't mention is Clinton (maybe mistakenly) bombing a factory in Sudan based on CIA intelligence only and signing CDA and COPA - both of them violations of the constitution. You could also throw that Kerry voted for the Patriot Act in there.
Another example I can give is Democrats saying "Bush invaded Afghanistan and didn't get Osama". That is true. Maybe that is because of ineptness or maybe Osama is just that good. But in the game of party politics, if you are a Democrat, you say "Bush is inept". Conveniently left out, in order to win the argument, is the fact that Osama declared war against the US in 1998. What is usually not mentioned is that launching a few missiles into the desert in Afghanistan and into a factory in Sudan didn't get Osama either. Forcing Sudan to expel Osama didn't do any good either and - in the Sudan government's opinion - just made matters worse.
This is the kind of story-telling that I don't really like about party politics.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
Here is a clip of Bush (works on realplayer)Originally posted by Doctor Dre
Duh he just fucks up people mind and never answer any question .
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/pri...time56_1c.smil
And here's what she said after the interview (at the end of the clip)
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0625/6news/6news56_1e.smil
Brothels and Escorts Worldwide.Comment
-
The main thing you can take from this thread is that even Colin, a man of great intelligence and considerable eloquence, finds it very very difficult to defend Bush and the Republican party as a whole when challenged.
Colin, why do you keep insisting you're not a Republican when every political post you make is pro-conservative? This is a new style of posting I've seen lately, conservatives who are ashamed to admit it but they can't help posting in defense of the latest Republican fuckup.
The Truth Hurts
Theking aka Pathfinder
There must be a dozen guys who do this now.Comment
-
But the thing is, I don't think it mattered one way or the other. It was such a complete clusterfuck on both sides that you really couldn't call either one a winner. It's like asking if you'd rather be hit on the side of the head with a hammer or the back of the head with a tire iron.Originally posted by Rich
Gore beat Bush in every debate I watched last year. Did anyone also watch news coverage after? Instead of showing Bush's responses and how poorly he did, they kept showing Gore's face looking annoyed or pissed off while Bush was talking. Good work CNN, we all know facial expressions are much, much more important that substance.
Gore was equally as pitiful. He came off so stiff and pompous that it was just as hard to watch him. I'd almost be willing to say he was an even worse debater, because HOW could anyone not come away smelling like roses in a debate against a man who has trouble articulating a large percentage of the English language? The whole thing was like nails on a chalk board. I couldn't even concentrate on what they were saying.
And for the comment on facial expressions and substance, surely you've heard the Nixon/Kennedy "what color suit and tie, do you have a tan, are you sweaty" story? On TV, everything matters.
Now watch this drive...
War National Damn Champions EagleComment
-
No, this is something Republicans do, don't smear both parties with the same brush. They are not the same.Originally posted by Colin
First of all, I think Clinton was a fine president. I have always said that. But in this game we call politics it is easy to do what I am saying.
If you're a Democrat or a liberal, you take everything and twist it, conveniently leaving out all factual evidence against that particular point of view or dismiss it for some other innocuous reason. Republicans do the same thing. This is exactly what politics has become.
For example, a lot of Democrats like to say that Bush is ignoring the Constitution and has violated international law. These are the two most popular examples today. What they don't mention is Clinton (maybe mistakenly) bombing a factory in Sudan based on CIA intelligence only and signing CDA and COPA - both of them violations of the constitution. You could also throw that Kerry voted for the Patriot Act in there.
Another example I can give is Democrats saying "Bush invaded Afghanistan and didn't get Osama". That is true. Maybe that is because of ineptness or maybe Osama is just that good. But in the game of party politics, if you are a Democrat, you say "Bush is inept". Conveniently left out, in order to win the argument, is the fact that Osama declared war against the US in 1998. What is usually not mentioned is that launching a few missiles into the desert in Afghanistan and into a factory in Sudan didn't get Osama either. Forcing Sudan to expel Osama didn't do any good either and - in the Sudan government's opinion - just made matters worse.
This is the kind of story-telling that I don't really like about party politics.
As someone who reads the papers, unlike your President, you know DAMN well that the outgoing Clinton team stressed to the incoming team that Osama should be treated as the HIGHEST priority regarding national security, and you know damn well that the Bushies just weren't interested.
Osama would NEVER have been able to pull off 9-11 with Clinton in office, they had to wait for a guy like Bush. You also know that with the faux patriotic fervor sweeping the nation, fomented by demagogues on the right, it would have been political suicide to vote against the Patriot Act at that time. After all, the Congress and the nation was forced to trust the bad intelligence that we now know was manufactured by the Bush administration to justify the Iraq invasion.
Can you say 'Yellowcake' and 'Valerie Plame'? Yes, I thought you could.Comment
-
It's interesting you say that. Our friend Peaches, who we have both known for years, swears up and down that I am a liberal and you have always sworn that I am a conservative. I just had this conversation with her in San Diego. She will not believe me that I am an independent.Originally posted by dig420
Colin, why do you keep insisting you're not a Republican when every political post you make is pro-conservative? This is a new style of posting I've seen lately, conservatives who are ashamed to admit it but they can't help posting in defense of the latest Republican fuckup.
.
Why? Maybe I just get under your skin on conservative issues and under hers on liberal ones. I have no idea.
You seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with the Democratic party 100% is therefore a conservative. I can't understand that kind of extremism.
Could a conservative say "I think Clinton was a fine president"? Ask Mike AI or 12 Clicks what they think of Clinton. You'll get a conservative answer. But I'm sorry I sorry I can't go all the way with you in seeing Hitler in George Bush."
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
I've never seen you make one post in defense of a liberal position or in defense of the Democratic party. I've seen you make several dozen in defense of the Repubs. What conclusion should a reasonable man draw from this?Originally posted by Colin
It's interesting you say that. Our friend Peaches, who we have both known for years, swears up and down that I am a liberal and you have always sworn that I am a conservative. I just had this conversation with her in San Diego. She will not believe me that I am an independent.
Why? Maybe I just get under your skin on conservative issues and under hers on liberal ones. I have no idea.
You seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with the Democratic party 100% is therefore a conservative. I can't understand that kind of extremism.
Could a conservative say "I think Clinton was a fine president"? Ask Mike AI or 12 Clicks what they think of Clinton. You'll get a conservative answer. But I'm sorry I sorry I can't go all the way with you in seeing Hitler in George Bush."
When MikeAI or Ronnie attack Clinton, they NEVER do it with any facts or in regard to any specific position of his. They just don't like him, they probably don't know why themselves. Those attacking Bush have damn good and damn specific reasons. There's a difference in the tone and quality of their respective critics and this is just one of the reasons why I'm always dumbfounded whenever I find out that someone I otherwise respect is a conservative. It doesn't happen often, but it happens.Comment
-
Originally posted by dig420
I've never seen you make one post in defense of a liberal position or in defense of the Democratic party. I've seen you make several dozen in defense of the Repubs. What conclusion should a reasonable man draw from this?
When MikeAI or Ronnie attack Clinton, they NEVER do it with any facts or in regard to any specific position of his. They just don't like him, they probably don't know why themselves. Those attacking Bush have damn good and damn specific reasons. There's an OBVIOUS difference in the tone and quality of their respective critics and this is just one of the reasons why I'm always dumbfounded whenever I find out that someone I otherwise respect is a conservative. It doesn't happen often, but it happens.Comment
-
First you state that members of both parties don't participate in this kind of telescopic blind, can't see both sides of the story thinking and then you go prove that they do!Originally posted by dig420
No, this is something Republicans do, don't smear both parties with the same brush. They are not the same.
As someone who reads the papers, unlike your President, you know DAMN well that the outgoing Clinton team stressed to the incoming team that Osama should be treated as the HIGHEST priority regarding national security, and you know damn well that the Bushies just weren't interested.
Osama would NEVER have been able to pull off 9-11 with Clinton in office, they had to wait for a guy like Bush. You also know that with the faux patriotic fervor sweeping the nation, fomented by demagogues on the right, it would have been political suicide to vote against the Patriot Act at that time. After all, the Congress and the nation was forced to trust the bad intelligence that we now know was manufactured by the Bush administration to justify the Iraq invasion.
Can you say 'Yellowcake' and 'Valerie Plame'? Yes, I thought you could.
Dig, I hate to say this but your reply on any political issue is 100% predictable. I knew almost exactly what your response would be. You know why? Because there are valid reasons both for and against nearly any point of view and as a Democrat, you present the Democratic side without ever saying "however", "but", or "here's something which might contradict what I am saying" though. You don't care about what is. You only care to show that Democrats are right 100% of the time and Republicans, 0. Oooh, the blame game.
I paint both sides with the same brush because they are. What? You think human nature doesn't apply to half of Amreicans?
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
lol meant to edit and quoted myself instead, too lazy to delete itComment
-
Still cryin after all these years....Originally posted by NickPapageorgio
If anyone has the 2000 debates on tape I would like you to watch them. GWB didn't answer a single question and was owned by Gore on every single question. He would simply change the wording around and re-state the question differently. I watched every debate and was dumbfounded with his seemingly lack of knowledge of what was being discussed. Watch them again if you don't believe me. It's true.
Question: "Mr.Bush, how do you plan on fixing 'problem A' if you are elected to the whitehouse?"
GWB: "Well, you are correct. 'Problem A' is a serious problem in our society. The only way we can truly deal with 'Problem A' is to get to the bottom of what causes 'Problem A'. And the only way to do that is to take a good long look at 'Problem A' and analyzate what is the heart of the problem. I guarantee, however, if I am elected office, you will never hear of 'Problem A' again."
Watch the debates again and tell me that isn't dead on lol.
Last edited by MikeHawk; 06-26-2004, 11:16 AM.Comment
Comment