George Bush would beat you in a debate
 

It's true! Sad, huh?

If he could pronounce the word debate.

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.

With a bat maybe.. :batman

not with time to prepare and a list of topics he wouldn't

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.:1orglaugh

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.

I highly doubt that that man could hold his own with a 2 year old.

http://www.thumbwhore.com/NoBush.jpg :2 cents:

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.:glugglug

Probably...I suck at public speaking.

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.:1orglaugh

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.

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.

he's honest alright.

I would be really surprised if Bush knew the meaning of most of those words he recites from his staff-written speeches :2 cents:

Name a topic Bush knows! LMAO!

He couldn't debate his ass out of a paper bag without a prep team and a teleprompter.

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.

He seems to have answered the questions to me.
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.

lets not forget bush wasnt 'elected' president

he went to court and paid for it :2 cents:

Good thing he has to debate John Kerry, and not one of us. :glugglug

You need a head start?

Kerry is an excellent debater. Much better than Gore was.

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.

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?

Rich potheads don't like rich cokeheads? ;-)

I'd bet my left nutsack that with equal preparation time, Danny would make GWB look like a confused child in a debate.

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.

the very last line in farenheit 911 sums it all up

"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!

MM IV?

My bathrobe hanging on a broomstick could beat W in a debate.

He speaks the way most people around here write and spell.

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.

Funny.

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?

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.

Agreed on Kerry's ability.

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.

I could do this myself but it's too easy. Ask a Republican. It's their team.

lol, yes comparing Bush to Clinton in a logical way is very easy..... :upsidedow

Good thing you left that one up to someone else. :1orglaugh

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?

Duh he just fucks up people mind and never answer any question .

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.