naw Red, I'm pretty sure even you can handle the spelling of a 5 letter word, at least on one of your good days that is.
One of the things that RUSS fail to understand is that the GOP minority "leaders" that he mentioned DO NOT represent the minority population!!! They are just puppets of Trent Lott. They have no real power to sway the party. JC Watts is considered a joke among African Americans that I talked to.
Yes, most Blacks absolutely hate Conservative Blacks. Most Blacks would rather let big Government rob from the rich and dispense the wealth to those too lazy to take advantage of opportunity. They've been fed this by the White Liberals who have convinced them they cannot be or do anything without voting for Liberals.....Sounds like they have new Masters....Conservative Blacks have proven this wrong...so they are castigated at every turn.
Let me throw in my 2 cents and leave before I have to read the flaming resposes.
Red Dawn, you and your like-minded buddies are idiots. Thank God your unemployment (or is it welfare) check allows you to stay home and sit on these boards all day.
Try getting a job and see how the working people in this country feel about things.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it.
Oh yeah, and for all you great Colin Powell advocates. He was against the Gulf War. He thought we should continue economic pressure. If this country followed his lead Kuwait and Saudi would both be under Iraq control and we would have gas prices that make today's look like peanuts. Powell for president - I don't think so.
Hey Red - do you secretly wish you could have swapped places with Monica?
Red Dawn, you and your like-minded buddies are idiots. Thank God your unemployment (or is it welfare) check allows you to stay home and sit on these boards all day.
Try getting a job and see how the working people in this country feel about things.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it.
Oh yeah, and for all you great Colin Powell advocates. He was against the Gulf War. He thought we should continue economic pressure. If this country followed his lead Kuwait and Saudi would both be under Iraq control and we would have gas prices that make today's look like peanuts. Powell for president - I don't think so.
Hey Red - do you secretly wish you could have swapped places with Monica?
JoeBad:
Do you ever have anything to contribute? You are nothing but a windbag. At least Tom and Russ make rational arguments. Besides, Colin Powell is a wonderful American and smart enough to NOT run for President.
Do you ever have anything to contribute? You are nothing but a windbag. At least Tom and Russ make rational arguments. Besides, Colin Powell is a wonderful American and smart enough to NOT run for President.
If Bore is fibbing, Dubya wants in on the action too:
<< Texas Gov. George W. Bush declared this past week
that Vice President Al Gore would create ``over 200,000
new or expanded federal programs.'' >>
He meant 200.
Dubya's "control" of English
<< Texas Gov. George W. Bush declared this past week
that Vice President Al Gore would create ``over 200,000
new or expanded federal programs.'' >>
He meant 200.
Dubya's "control" of English
403:
I think the poor fellow probably does have a learning disability. If he'd just admit it, he'd get a good sized sympathy vote, particularly from women. Many families have Yogi Berras in their bloodline. Denying it makes him look weaker. Big mistake in my view.
This debate should be very interesting. If Bush is not well-prepared he is going to kill himself in the polls. If he comes across folksy and down to earth, without appearing to be a nitwit, then he helps himself. We'll see.
I think the poor fellow probably does have a learning disability. If he'd just admit it, he'd get a good sized sympathy vote, particularly from women. Many families have Yogi Berras in their bloodline. Denying it makes him look weaker. Big mistake in my view.
This debate should be very interesting. If Bush is not well-prepared he is going to kill himself in the polls. If he comes across folksy and down to earth, without appearing to be a nitwit, then he helps himself. We'll see.
thebestMAX
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2000
- 7,521
- 140
- 106
I do love CHESS9s and RED DAWNs posts. Heee Hee.
TOMINATOR is still my hero.
Dont necessarily agree with them but at least they are coherent in their thinking, right or wrong, and amusing.
TOMINATOR is still my hero.
Dont necessarily agree with them but at least they are coherent in their thinking, right or wrong, and amusing.
Before we all keep repeating the Republican propaganda, let's put the silly accusations to rest...
From The Wall Street Journal, 9/28/2000, "The Non-Character Issue" by Albert R. Hunt, page A23:
"The most popular Gore hype happened last year when, in a TV interview, he said, 'I took the initiative in creating the Internet.' He did not, as critics charge, claim he invented the internet.
Mr. Gore indisputably was one of the first lawmakers to spot the potential of the internet and played an important role in federal support, most experts agree. Mr. Gore 'helped push through very important bills that set in place...the commercialization of the internet,' says David Farber, a University of Pennsylvania professor of telecommunications and chief technologist of the Federal Communications Commission."
And this...
"...the GOP nominee's exaggerations or misleading assertions rival his rival's...Mr. Bush declared that the military is so ill-prepared that two divisions would have to report not ready for duty. Not so. When Mr. Bush was embarrased by an interview he'd given about convicted killer Karla Faye Tucker that ran in Talk magazine, he became Clintonian. First his campaign claimed his comments were taken out of context. Then Mr. Bush declared that 'it wasn't a sit-down interview.' and that he 'didn't do the interview for Talk.' By any objective standard Mr. Bush has exaggerated considerably his business background, his military record and his achievements as governor."
Mr. Hunt further notes that both candidates have been guilty of exaggerations, but neither has done anything as serious as a lie under oath. Part of the Republican strategy is to smear Gore with Clinton's much more serious failings. In truth, other than exaggeration for self-glorification, neither one has shown that his statements make him unfit for office.
As I said before, The Wall Street Journal can hardly be viewed as part of the liberal media (unless you are the Reform Party's current candidate). Its editorial board makes no secret of a disdain for anything that is not Republican.
From The Wall Street Journal, 9/28/2000, "The Non-Character Issue" by Albert R. Hunt, page A23:
"The most popular Gore hype happened last year when, in a TV interview, he said, 'I took the initiative in creating the Internet.' He did not, as critics charge, claim he invented the internet.
Mr. Gore indisputably was one of the first lawmakers to spot the potential of the internet and played an important role in federal support, most experts agree. Mr. Gore 'helped push through very important bills that set in place...the commercialization of the internet,' says David Farber, a University of Pennsylvania professor of telecommunications and chief technologist of the Federal Communications Commission."
And this...
"...the GOP nominee's exaggerations or misleading assertions rival his rival's...Mr. Bush declared that the military is so ill-prepared that two divisions would have to report not ready for duty. Not so. When Mr. Bush was embarrased by an interview he'd given about convicted killer Karla Faye Tucker that ran in Talk magazine, he became Clintonian. First his campaign claimed his comments were taken out of context. Then Mr. Bush declared that 'it wasn't a sit-down interview.' and that he 'didn't do the interview for Talk.' By any objective standard Mr. Bush has exaggerated considerably his business background, his military record and his achievements as governor."
Mr. Hunt further notes that both candidates have been guilty of exaggerations, but neither has done anything as serious as a lie under oath. Part of the Republican strategy is to smear Gore with Clinton's much more serious failings. In truth, other than exaggeration for self-glorification, neither one has shown that his statements make him unfit for office.
As I said before, The Wall Street Journal can hardly be viewed as part of the liberal media (unless you are the Reform Party's current candidate). Its editorial board makes no secret of a disdain for anything that is not Republican.
Red:
Oh, for sure. Bush does have a sense of humor. Gore's plastic surgeon gave him his sense of humor.
Oh, for sure. Bush does have a sense of humor. Gore's plastic surgeon gave him his sense of humor.
<< 'I took the initiative in creating the Internet.' >>
Sure, he doesn't actually say "I invented the Internet", but that statement above, quoted verbatim, has the same intent and effect.
The person who "took the intiative in creating the Internet" was a scientist at DARPA in the late '60s, for fsck's sake already. Gore's statement is flat out wrong, misleading, and idiotic. Red, if you don't see that, then you have a problem in perception.
Tominator: You forgot this whopper of a Gore lie -- he said in an interview that he pulled guard duty at a remote firebase when he was a hostile area in Vietnam. His fellow Army journalists stated that this was incorrect, that no visiting journalists were placed on combat duty while visiting other areas because that was the responsibility of the local troops. When confronted, Gore recanted his story. What's a little dishonesty on the backs of dead soldiers when it's for political gain?
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Algore lies through his teeth? If you vote for him, you deserve whatever crap emerges from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I'll move to Borneo for four years.
<< As I said before, The Wall Street Journal can hardly be viewed as part of the liberal media (unless you are the Reform Party's current candidate). Its editorial board makes no secret of a disdain for anything that is not Republican. >>
Anything that is critical of a Republican is the product of
the "liberal media".
That's their easy excuse to avoid criticism.
chess9,
<< This debate should be very interesting. >>
No, they won't. I fully expect both candidates to simply prevent making fools of themselves. Poll numbers will probably be about the same afterward. They'll both spew forth the tried-and-true rhetoric we?ve come to expect from born-and-bred politicians. It will be anything but interesting. Throw in Harry Brown, Darth Nader and hell even Buchanan and then I can guarantee you something remarkable.
Jesse V. said it best, ?in this country we have two major parties?that?s only one more than russia?.:disgust:
<< This debate should be very interesting. >>
No, they won't. I fully expect both candidates to simply prevent making fools of themselves. Poll numbers will probably be about the same afterward. They'll both spew forth the tried-and-true rhetoric we?ve come to expect from born-and-bred politicians. It will be anything but interesting. Throw in Harry Brown, Darth Nader and hell even Buchanan and then I can guarantee you something remarkable.
Jesse V. said it best, ?in this country we have two major parties?that?s only one more than russia?.
:disgust:AndrewR - Since you are the master of what people mean even though it's not what their words say, kindly help us interpret the Jr Bush quotes which were cited as well.
By the way, I use the term Jr Bush not because he is a "Jr," but because I think he is inferior to his father in every way.
Really folks, this stuff is silly. All the politicians embellish their record. If you want to get your shorts all twisted up about it, so be it. But to suggest that one is worse than the other is just plain wrong.
By the way, I use the term Jr Bush not because he is a "Jr," but because I think he is inferior to his father in every way.
Really folks, this stuff is silly. All the politicians embellish their record. If you want to get your shorts all twisted up about it, so be it. But to suggest that one is worse than the other is just plain wrong.
JellyBaby:
I hope you're wrong. I expect these debates to separate the cowboy from the hick.
My prediction is two things will happen: 1) Gore will come across stiff, but more polished than Bush; 2) Bush will make some stupid gaffs, but will look like a good 'ol boy.
Draw.
I hope you're wrong. I expect these debates to separate the cowboy from the hick.
My prediction is two things will happen: 1) Gore will come across stiff, but more polished than Bush; 2) Bush will make some stupid gaffs, but will look like a good 'ol boy.
Draw.
chees9,
Interesting summary but, the real question is who does a draw benefit? I think it benefits Bush since Gore has declared the superior debater.
KingHam
Interesting summary but, the real question is who does a draw benefit? I think it benefits Bush since Gore has declared the superior debater.
KingHam
Maybe Shrub will so something Lazio-esque like walk over to Albert's podium and ask him to sign an internet tax ban pledge.
KingHam:
Draw means no one comes out ahead. They are statistically even if you put any faith in polls.
I think this election is going to turn on: 1)Weather; 2)Bush not screwing up between now and election day; 3)The few remaining undecided voters. Good weather, and Gore wins. Bad weather means Bush wins. The crusty consevatives will walk a mile for THEIR camel (Bush).
Draw means no one comes out ahead. They are statistically even if you put any faith in polls.
I think this election is going to turn on: 1)Weather; 2)Bush not screwing up between now and election day; 3)The few remaining undecided voters. Good weather, and Gore wins. Bad weather means Bush wins. The crusty consevatives will walk a mile for THEIR camel (Bush).
chess9,
you could be right and are dead on regarding the right-wing republicans deserving to lose because they backed a turkey. Didn't Shrub already have $50 million in the bank from these guys this time last year??? Neither of these turds deserve to sit in that comfy white house chair. I really can't remember a time when we had truly good choices at the national level, and I'm sick of this.
you could be right and are dead on regarding the right-wing republicans deserving to lose because they backed a turkey. Didn't Shrub already have $50 million in the bank from these guys this time last year??? Neither of these turds deserve to sit in that comfy white house chair. I really can't remember a time when we had truly good choices at the national level, and I'm sick of this.
<< Draw means no one comes out ahead. They are statistically even if you put any faith in polls. >>
I disagree. There has been much ado made by many (including some on this board) that Gore would destroy Buch in the debates. Should Gore fail to show the "killer instinct" that we've all heard about, how will that affect the 12-15% of people that are undecided?
KingHam
KingHam:
I haven't been one of those who thought Gore would kill Bush in the debates. To the contrary. If Bush works hard and is very careful, he can come across like a good ol' boy, meaning a friendly person who will do the country no harm. Many people really decide not on issues, but on whether the candidate is personally appealing.
Gore must come across with quite a bit more warmth than he has radiated in the past. These debates really are about charisma more than the issues. Most of us who participate in these threads are interested in the issues, but a lot of people go with the "touchy feely" stuff.
Something else. Bush has been getting a little better lately at getting his message across to the voters. He has made a few stupid comments, but he is starting to make people believe that he has a vision for America that isn't just about the rich and powerful. Frankly, he hasn't convinced me.
So, right now, I think the "MO" (momentum) is definitely with Bush. I see this race as Bush's to lose right now.
I haven't been one of those who thought Gore would kill Bush in the debates. To the contrary. If Bush works hard and is very careful, he can come across like a good ol' boy, meaning a friendly person who will do the country no harm. Many people really decide not on issues, but on whether the candidate is personally appealing.
Gore must come across with quite a bit more warmth than he has radiated in the past. These debates really are about charisma more than the issues. Most of us who participate in these threads are interested in the issues, but a lot of people go with the "touchy feely" stuff.
Something else. Bush has been getting a little better lately at getting his message across to the voters. He has made a few stupid comments, but he is starting to make people believe that he has a vision for America that isn't just about the rich and powerful. Frankly, he hasn't convinced me.
So, right now, I think the "MO" (momentum) is definitely with Bush. I see this race as Bush's to lose right now.
<< I guess if you get yourself all worked up you will about believe anything the Schlockmiesters tell you >>
ROFL! Look who is all worked up!
<< Damn Republicans....[blah, blah, blah] >>
My, my, aren't we testy? Your blithering protestations are becoming less and less coherent, and I fail to see any thought process involved, other than the quippish labels you keep throwing around. Ever thought about marketing as a career?
<< ...neither are really looking to shake things up too much... >>
Well, of course not. Since they must appeal to a broad range of people to be elected these days, that really is the intent if you haven't noticed (you haven't). What does that mean? Stability and limited predictability. Let's shake things up a bit by erupting into violence like the West Bank or perhaps a new constitution every few decades would be fun just like France. Perhaps we could have a government that changes with the tides like Italy? WTF do you want? Radical change is never achieved without a change of government because that's why people form governments, to maintain stability.
<< The truth of the matter is we'll still have the Right Wing Hypocrites and the Left Wing Socialists of the lunatic Fringe to deal with. >>
The fringe has reared its head, and it comes not from either of the parties it seems.
jjm:
<< Since you are the master of what people mean even though it's not what their words say... >>
Here's a little lesson from Webster's, you know, the DICTIONARY:
cre-ate: 1) to bring into existence; 2a) to invest with a new form, office, or rank; 2b) to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior; 3) cause, occasion; 4a) to produce through imaginative skill; 4b) design, to make or bring into existence something new
in-vent: 1) find, discover; 2) to devise by thinking; 3) to produce for the first time through imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment
Now, explain how in hell those do not have EXACTLY the same meaning? Lovely bloody semantics but so hopelessly wrong that it's not even funny -- more sad.
Reminds me of this definition:
is: pres 3d sing of BE , dial pres 1st & 2d sing of BE , substand pres pl of BE.
If you don't understand the reference, please don't bother responding. Why is it so fscking hard to accept that the man is a blatant liar who is too stupid to bother trying to conceal it? The ostrich bury their collective head in the sand and argue semantics. Either Algore is a brazen liar or he's too stupid to understand the sentence, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Which is worse? Regardless of the answer, neither is acceptable.
And don't come back with "But Bush did..." I couldn't care less -- discuss this issue. If you duck it, you concede the veracity of what's written. Is that what you're doing?
jjm: One note on your comment about pensions:
Of course companies are cutting their retirement benefits -- this surprises you? With the "greying of America", people are living longer and longer and longer. With ages reaching 20+ years beyond "retirement age", how can we expect a company to fund the retirement of its workers for that long? If people would accept lower salaries and donate money to annuities, then perhaps it would be fine for a company (hint: that's an IRA), but as it stands, it makes perfect sense that companies would seek to limit their pension payouts given the aging state of the nation, especially in light of the impending retirement of the Baby Boomers (gawd, I hate that label already).
It comes down to responsibility. You have to plan, yourself, for your retirement, not instead rely on your company or your government to support you. I don't see a problem with that. You can also provide for yourself by having children who can later help you out (a return on a "human" investment) when you are too old to help yourself. You have the freedom to provide for yourself, and yes, you have the freedom to screw yourself. I can understand anger when monies paid are not returned with adequate interest, but I do not know enough about what you describe to know if that is true. If people would forego a new car every two years and that big screen television, perhaps they would face their retirement with less trepidation.
Of course companies are cutting their retirement benefits -- this surprises you? With the "greying of America", people are living longer and longer and longer. With ages reaching 20+ years beyond "retirement age", how can we expect a company to fund the retirement of its workers for that long? If people would accept lower salaries and donate money to annuities, then perhaps it would be fine for a company (hint: that's an IRA), but as it stands, it makes perfect sense that companies would seek to limit their pension payouts given the aging state of the nation, especially in light of the impending retirement of the Baby Boomers (gawd, I hate that label already).
It comes down to responsibility. You have to plan, yourself, for your retirement, not instead rely on your company or your government to support you. I don't see a problem with that. You can also provide for yourself by having children who can later help you out (a return on a "human" investment) when you are too old to help yourself. You have the freedom to provide for yourself, and yes, you have the freedom to screw yourself. I can understand anger when monies paid are not returned with adequate interest, but I do not know enough about what you describe to know if that is true. If people would forego a new car every two years and that big screen television, perhaps they would face their retirement with less trepidation.
Red:
Bush should be behind significantly at this stage because he's another Dan Quayle, or worse. (At least Quayle could play golf.) Bush is neck and neck with Gore, which suggests that despite the booming economy Gores's negatives are pretty substantial. The anti-Clinton factors are weighing heavily in this election. People are confused. They don't like Clinton's personal behavior, but the economy is doing great. They may like Bush, but say if it ain't broke, why fix it? That's why the undecideds are at an all-time high of 30%. If Bush screws up tonight, I think the MO will make a major shift and the election will be lost. I agree with the commentators who think these are the most important debates since Kennedy/Nixon. This first one should be very very interesting.
Anyway, Bush is the volatile mixture here. Gore is pretty much what you see is what you get. He hasn't done a lot that is terribly wrong, and neither has Bush. But Bush has the capacity for looking and sounding like an inappropriate person for the job. With that hunched-over, smirky-mouthed, stumbling speaking style, he is a train wreck waiting to happen. His "handlers" must be biting their nails. And Gore has trained very hard for the debates, in an almost military like fashion, whereas Bush is being very laid back and casual in his preparation. Bush has made a big mistake in doing so, because he needs personal discipline much more than Gore. Gore may embroider the truth, but he doesn't sound like a drug addict coming out of a weekend binge.
So, when I say I see this as Bush's election to lose, I don't mean he is a sure winner if he doesn't screw up. If Bush doesn't screw up, the election will still be very close unless we have really bad weather. If Bush doesn't hold his own, he will have lost the election. These debates will not give Bush an edge UP. These debates will keep Bush from edging down if he can pull off a draw.
Just my two farthing's worth, which is more than you paid for it.
Bush should be behind significantly at this stage because he's another Dan Quayle, or worse. (At least Quayle could play golf.) Bush is neck and neck with Gore, which suggests that despite the booming economy Gores's negatives are pretty substantial. The anti-Clinton factors are weighing heavily in this election. People are confused. They don't like Clinton's personal behavior, but the economy is doing great. They may like Bush, but say if it ain't broke, why fix it? That's why the undecideds are at an all-time high of 30%. If Bush screws up tonight, I think the MO will make a major shift and the election will be lost. I agree with the commentators who think these are the most important debates since Kennedy/Nixon. This first one should be very very interesting.
Anyway, Bush is the volatile mixture here. Gore is pretty much what you see is what you get. He hasn't done a lot that is terribly wrong, and neither has Bush. But Bush has the capacity for looking and sounding like an inappropriate person for the job. With that hunched-over, smirky-mouthed, stumbling speaking style, he is a train wreck waiting to happen. His "handlers" must be biting their nails. And Gore has trained very hard for the debates, in an almost military like fashion, whereas Bush is being very laid back and casual in his preparation. Bush has made a big mistake in doing so, because he needs personal discipline much more than Gore. Gore may embroider the truth, but he doesn't sound like a drug addict coming out of a weekend binge.
So, when I say I see this as Bush's election to lose, I don't mean he is a sure winner if he doesn't screw up. If Bush doesn't screw up, the election will still be very close unless we have really bad weather. If Bush doesn't hold his own, he will have lost the election. These debates will not give Bush an edge UP. These debates will keep Bush from edging down if he can pull off a draw.
Just my two farthing's worth, which is more than you paid for it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter