It's time to rumble again...Debates Round 3: FIGHT! :)

[etech]

There is not that much difference on some issuses.
Foriegn affairs, Gore played the "Ugly American" and I got the impression he would use US troops more quickly overseas.
Education, sure they are both for it. Gore wants more Federal control, Bush want testing and more local control.
Environment, If Gore told what he really wants to do it would scare of 90% of the voters.

Basically Gore just doesn't have any ammunition to attack Bush with.

The one attack question of credibilty, he failed miserably on.

 

[Tripleshot]

DanC

Thats the extent of your contribution to this thread?Personal attacks on the members instead of debate of the debate? I think I'll just bow out of this right wing lunacy that prevails when you enter the the thread. You angered me last time when you attacked a kid here last week relentlessly with your crap.You need not ever address me, moron.

Your character is really in question in my book. With your "I'm going to quit Dist Computing" thread and what resulted, you haven't the maturity to address me.

Come back when you grow up.

 

[Opinionated]

Red,

Yes, the "Soccer Moms" and other undecideds are a key to the final decision on Nov 7th, but beyond that, I think Governor Bush is trying to make it clear to everyone (including those who might vote against him), that AFTER the election, if he is entrusted with the presidency, that he is the better choice to pull the country together to accomplish those things that Americans (and especially "Soccer Moms&quot care about.... ESPECIALLY education.

And I think folks are truly beginning to see that in Governor Bush, we get a man who will champion what he believes to be the right things to do for Americans.

DanC - Thanks! They don't have a completely bald "Old Fart" icon. Hopefully, when we get a man of true conviction, who believes in personal responsibility and self-reliance in the White House, we can begin to educate our children that the Government is NOT their caretaker.... that they must take charge of their own destinies.

Opinionated

 

[JellyBaby]

DanC,

I must inform you of a flaw in your plan: you seem to think you're gonna get our voting system changed under Bush. Can you reasonably expect that to even be an issue with republicans? The democrats will serve us no better here. Your only choice is to vote in independents/third-parties. I know, I know, that just "puts the bad guy in office". Yet the vicious cycle continues to loop and nothing really changes when you do that.

And on the electoral system, I don't feel it should be abolished. Rather, popular vote in each state should dictate who the electorate votes for. Given the average political awareness in this country, I would strongly hesitate to give Joe Q. Public absolute power to vote in candidates.

I'm also for a progressional voting system, first mentioned by a few others on this board. We need to adopt some sort of runoff ballot which will give voters the power to rank their choices, 1,2,3,4,etc. and eliminate the "wasted vote syndrome" which keeps many of us from voting our preference. Again, the two power parties will not allow this because the current system favors their continual trade of power.

 

[DanC]

Well cry to your mommy Tripleshot - It was you that attacked me -
I came back with a snappy response and you whine.

By all means - bow out.

and.. you don't know squat about what went on in DC -

Mighty sour grapes there for one who flings such high-brow statements about life and government.

<moron> I love that one.
The figure 200 is so vitally descriptive between you and I because it represents your weight, and my IQ.

The &quot;kid&quot; was being an idiot - and we dealt with it. Go ahead and ask him. You liberals always get whiny when you get smacked down. <chuckle> Notice which one of us is so mad?

Drink a beer and chill out.

I just love getting the last word when someone gets so upset their mind no longer functions. If you're going to engage in these repartee's - you might just want to look over your inflammatory statements prior to crying because you got smacked with a trout... LMAO - Have a nice evening.

 

[DanC]

Jelly -


<< you seem to think you're gonna get our voting system changed under Bush >>



Where did I say that?



<< Rather, popular vote in each state should dictate who the electorate votes for >>


Seems that's rather like the way it works now...

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Where did I say that? >>

DanC,

Just inference from your two statements in the same post, &quot;He's just the better choice.&quot; (Bush) and &quot;THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM MUST GO - DIRECT POPULAR VOTE IS THE ONLY WAY TO CHOOSE THE RIGHT MAN OR WOMAN FOR THE JOB!&quot;. Remember I said you seem to think....what's your true stance here?

<< Seems that's rather like the way it works now... >>

No, not really. Right now the electorate can basically do whatever it wants to. What I'm for is change to force an allocation of electoral voting power based on each state's popular vote.

 

[Opinionated]

Tripleshot, you appear to be exhibiting a rather thin skin toward DanC.... and calling him a moron certainly lowers your credibility on your criticism of DanC making personal attacks. I don't know you of course, but I would hope that you can see that in any lively political debate, that some hyperbole will be thrown about.

DanC holds his political views with at least the same (if not more) fervent conviction as you hold yours. I don't pretend to know the details of the DC Forum deal, but I am confident that THAT discussion is pretty much irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

I have to admit, though I choose not to (most of the time) comment on them, I find some of the poitical views expressed by some on this Forum to be somewhat ill thought out, shallow, immature, and frankly moronic..... just as I'm quite sure some of the more left-leaning members find my views to be similarly flawed.

That's why we're here.... Damn fun ain't it!

Opinionated

 

[DanC]

Jelly - My point is this:

Both are &quot;puppets&quot; in the sense that they must sell themselves to the individual (2) parties to survive. We know that the life expectancy of a 3rd party candidate in this system is roughly that of a 2nd Lieutenant in Vietnam.

The electoral system serves no function in modern society. It was created to &quot;protect&quot; an electorate in which only the minority could read or write. This is no longer the case. On four occasions, the white house has been won by a man who lost the popular vote. That in and of itself is reason enough to scrap the system.

These &quot;debates&quot; about who is right, who has better hair, who stumbles... are meaningless. You still only have the choices that the power-brokers slam down your throats. THEY - want you to think the things you argue about are the true issues. They're not. The system is broken. Plain and simple.

 

[Opinionated]

DanC - As much as I hate to &quot;screw&quot; with the Constitution, I have to agree with you on the Electoral College. It's an anachronism who's time and purpose has long since passed.

Not only do I think a direct popular vote would open up the system for a better chance at a third party candidate making a serious challenge, I also think it would go a long way toward reinvigorating the American electorate as a whole, producing large turnouts at the polls.... which I see as a definite plus for the country.

If we can re-engage the majority of the voting public into the process, we do two things 1)encourage them to become more politically aware and educated, and 2)by drawing them into the process we create a populace who feels they have something invested in the system and that they have a true vested interest in what happens and that they can and will have an impact.

And all of the above can and would serve to make the Government more responsive to the wishes of the governed, which is what we all want.

Opinionated

PS - With the proper impetus, the electoral college could be eliminated before the next General Election. I believe this.

 

[AndrewR]

<< I also think he stumbled badly regarding the enviroment. All Bush could do is repeat &quot;sound science&quot; a few times... >>



One of the few parts I watched...I thought Bush's answer was a little weak to start, though I like the idea of a consensus with state authorities to a degree since it encourages cooperation rather than encouraging resistance. While I consider myself an environmentalist, I know that there are practical limitations to federal &quot;takings&quot;, something which Gore doesn't seem to grasp and which worries me about his stance.

I thought Bush nailed the global warming in terms of emissions, however. The science is still disputed, and the recent weather trends are not conclusive in the short term (as Gore seemed to imply about the effects of La Nina -- what will we say if we have a colder than normal winter, which is predicted?). In any event, the US has taken great steps in reducing its problem, but the developing world has not because it was excluded. We could be perfectly clean running all hydrogen powered machines yet Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America can belch out enough pollutants to damage the atmosphere. That's ludicrous.

Further, if we truly want to reduce vehicle emissions, we need to come up with a replacement for heavy diesel engines, which produce BY FAR the most harmful waste on our roads. Electrical cars don't address that problem. Neither candidate seems aware of that.

 

[etech]

We will have to agree to disagree on that point Red.
As Gore was discussing how he was going to tell other countries how to run their affairs I almost cringed. The only term that describes it is the &quot;Ugly American&quot;.
I need the transcripts, but it sounded to me like
&quot;We are the most powerful, wealthy nation on earth. We need to tell those other countries how to have a succesful democracy&quot;


How many times does it have to be said, it was not in the coalitions mandate to dispose Saddam Hussein? Trying to go into Iraq to root him out would of been a disaster. The coalition would have dissolved, if we did manage to kill him he would have turned into a martyr. Please, end of that story.

I'll agree we should have done more to help, but I do not profess to know all of the details of what the situation was at that time. I doubt that many people do.

 

[DanC]

Opinionated -
Not only do I like your hairstyle - you are one of the few who appear not to be rabid. :Q

My tendency is to make equally bizarre statements when faced with some of the utterances that inevitably pop up here - of course the concept is irony - but some of the more &quot;tender&quot; ones get offended. Welcome to Psychology 101.

As I was saying - (the above doesn't point to you - I was just pontificating.)
We will always be faced with what we have now until things are changed. BTW - can you show me where the electoral college system is enumerated in the constitution? - I don't believe it's there, but could be wrong.

BTW - even though we know this is all a right-wing plot, the latest at Vote.com shows:

Al Gore (1,167)
(7%)
George W. Bush (16,701)
(93%)

 

[Opinionated]

Red,

Gore said that &quot;Nation Building&quot; was a somewhat &quot;perjorative&quot; term used to express the idea. Well, as a former military officer, I can tell you that is the EXACT term used to describe the process in the military manuals today.

As to comparing the Marshall Plan to curent day efforts at Nation Building, the parallel is simply fallacious. For one, almost NONE of our &quot;nation building&quot; attempts have been taken in an environment where there was much chance of success. The Western cultures in early 20th century Europe hardly compare to those of Somalia, or Haiti.... or frankly in any other place I can think of off the top of my head. In post WWII Europe, you had industrial societies (albeit battered by war) with relatively highly educated populaces, with the resources and materials (both institutional, intellectual, and physical), on which to build the infrastructure of a &quot;Western style&quot; democracy.... or at least a kissin' cousin.

In Somalia and Haiti, you have/had a populace that was largely illiterate and among whom the idea of &quot;self-government&quot; is virtually unknown.

We made similar &quot;mistakes&quot; in trying to impose &quot;our&quot; style of government on several Latin American countries as well..... there in cultures whose traditions were dominated by very centralized &quot;strong-man&quot; governments reminiscent of the historical influences of their colonial forefathers (Spain and portugal).

As Governor Bush stated, we simply cannot continue to tell other countries that OUR way is THE way.... As much as I'd like to see a world full of functioning &quot;Western&quot; styled democracies, it takes a WHOLE LOT of societal preparation and evolution to build the infrastructure necessary to form and maintain governing traditions similar to ours. And in many places, that evolution has simply not happened nor is it likely to occur any time soon.

Thus, Gore's jsutification for nation building based on the success of the Marshall Plan is simply not valid for the most part.

Opinionated

 

[Moonbeam]

The FBI should be advised to check Bush's nose for any missing subpoenaed documents if he gets elected. One of his snorts imploded 35 windows in the debate hall. Geez, what's that all about. Obviously he's not a bee keeper. He sould keep away from anvils.

 

[DanC]

...but - the FBI should be monitoring BORE - He's wearing a Mafia hairstyle...

Here we go again...

 

[Opinionated]

DanC - Funny that you should mention it, but even as I was writing it, I couldn't recall where or IF the Electoral College is mentioned in the Constitution. It may well not be. I have to admit, I haven't read the Constitution in over a year now.... <kicking self.. making note to do>

However, if it isn't, so much the better.... Just makes it easier to change.

Opinionated

 

[DanC]

Opinionated - you've still got a great hairstyle. LMAO

I've had about all the fun I can take for one night - G'night all...

You too Tripleshot! - (he's still not speaking to me) - I could tell by the way the door slammed after the stomping down the hall....

 

[DanC]

I know - I was heading out of here...

Red - you show such remarkable clarity of thought.... You may find it odd - but I'm actually a Libertarian...

But - am cognizant that nationally - it's a lost vote. so - smaller govt., lower taxes - not on the Demo agenda. Leaves me only one choice, Nicht War?

Anyway - Yes - the real issue is scrap the system. It's what's broke. You'd find the candidates singing an entirely different tune.

Goodnight again all! - You too Tripleshot! - Tripleshot? - hmmmm... must still be pouting. :Q

 

[Opinionated]

On the Environment....

Folks, I spent a lot of time and energy a few years ago as a business process engineer/re-engineer. And the number one lesson I took away from that experience was this:

Organizations do NOT like to change... Not very profound, but very important.

Thugh I am a very conservative leaning man politically, I am extremely concerned with matters of the environment. We HAVE to get a handle on some serious problems (I won't go into specifics).

BUT, to affect change in any organization you must have three things:

1)True belief in the need for change and leadership from the Chief Executive (and the guy holding the purse strings).

2)&quot;Buy-in&quot; by the rank and file of the membership of the organization that change is 1)necessary, 2)will benefit &quot;me&quot;, 3)won't cost me my job.

3)Frank and honest examination of ALL processes (or lack thereof) in the entire organization t 1)determine what the goal, or product of the organization is, and 2)what and how can we streamline/create new process(es) to achieve the goal or produce the product NOT with just marginal efficiency increases, but with productivity increases orders of magnitude greater than the start point.

To attempt the restructure missing any element of the above is futility in the extreme.

Now, attacking our environmental problems at home and globally must be attempted the same way.

Say we take VP Gore's approach which is essentially the top-down approach without true &quot;Buy-in&quot; by the rank and file (states, locals, and people), you will simply be peeing into the wind. The rank and file will rebel and fight you every step of the way.

Governor Bush's approach is more likely to succeed, since it has as its premise the need to form a consensus first that change is needed and an examonation of the causes to construct a rational (and palatable) way to achieve the goal. Remember, if the rank and file thinks they might not benefit from the change, or might wind up without a job, they won't buy-in to the need to make ANY changes.

It's a LOT more involved than this short description, but I think this highlights my position that &quot;Big Brother&quot; telling us what we HAVE to do is a LOT less likely to achieve the most desirable results.... and as most folks are aware.... ill-advised government action produces un-intended and often undesirable effects.

Opinionated

 

[Opinionated]

Red,

Your quite likely correct that he doesn't currently have a fully mature idea of what needs to be done.

THAT is one of the things that a good process- re-engineer likes.... It is sufficient that the Chief Executive recognize that the change is needed, and be able to supervise/back experts that have the knowledge/tools necessary to accomplish the make-over.

We've got those experts now.... lots of them. What we NEED is a leader willing to take the political heat necessary to LEAD on the issue without any pre-conceptions as to what has to take place.

I've found that &quot;clean slates&quot; and open minds are easier to work with than CEOs who have closely held opinions as to the specifics of the changes needed. And in an organization the size we are dealing with (the country), pre-conceptions (or the peoples' perception that there are pre-conceptions (agenda)) is a stumbling block to the process that sits right there on the starting line.

Opinionated

 

[Opinionated]

By any chance, is it evident to anyone out there that I am seriously considering running for Congress in '02?

Night all,
Opinionated

 

[Opinionated]

Gotta start somewhere.



<< The only thing you don't have what he and Gore do ios the willingness to sellout the American Voter for the Special Interest Groups >>



... and money. Though I think that the money issue can be minimized with a solid two-year grass-roots campaign on a series of core issues. Top 10 Issue is NOT taking any PAC or Party money. I'll spend the two years studying my incumbent oponent, researching and learning my district in excrutiating detail, fleshing out my positions on district, national, and international issues, honing my debate &quot;parry and thrust&quot; here, and picking the brains of all the &quot;movers and shakers&quot; in my district (on both sides).

I suspect that within the first year it will become quite clear what my intentions are and that the resources I will need to compete during the &quot;run&quot; will begin to materialize. I come from a pretty conservative district. What the voters want is someone they know that 1) can beat the incumbent soundly, and 2) that won't sell 'em out in DC.

That's me.

Opinionated

 

[chess9]

My view of the debate:

1. The foreign policy questions were too softball. I don't think Jim Lehrer gave them enough thought. I wanted to know if either actually knew the major foreign policy issues facing America. Other than troop deployment and &quot;nation building&quot;, they didn't deliver. Of course we support Israel. Ho-hum. I can get that stuff off the front page.

2. Bush was much better this time. He lost the last debate, but gave a much better performance last night. If he weren't such a puppet of the Daddy Warbucks crowd, I would consider voting for him. I think this debate was a draw.

3. Bush did a better job of selling his agenda on making government smaller and giving local control back to the States. This is an issue that resonates with a lot of people. To win, he must strongly articulate his views on this particular issue. On giving education control back to the States, he's right, on civil rights legislation, he's wrong.

4. Bush got his ass handed to him regarding Texas issues. I see this as part of a building strategy of the Dems. If the race is close, go to the negatives of Bush with gusto. I expect the ads, rhetoric and last debate to be very heated. Giving tax breaks to the rich while ignoring the poor struck me as terribly evil. It took Texas almost two years to get a healthcare program in place for poor kids and the Feds were paying for most of it! Truly abyssmal government. Gore handled the &quot;priorities&quot; issue well, declining to say Bush had a hard heart. Bush looked just awful on this issue and probably lost a gazillion women voters, if they were still listening.

5. I think third party candidates should have been heartened at how these two, in many ways, look and sound like they came from pretty much the same mold. Liberals must be aghast at Gore. Conservatives have less to worry about regarding Bush, but he SOUNDS like he isn't firm on some of the core values of his constitutents.

6. Gore is very conservative on the gun issues. He is trying to appeal to men, but will lose a lot of liberal support with the view that almost everyone should be allowed to own a gun. I oppose personal gun ownership because I see Americans drive every day. Why would anyone think Americans would observe gun safety when they don't follow the driving rules? We're killing thousands of kids each year so people can have a killing machine in their houses. Come on Gore, where are your balls?

7. Neither one of these guys is the caliber of Clinton. I think a &quot;none of the above&quot; choice is needed for this election. Instead of the Gore/Bush debates, these should be called the Tweedle-Dum/Tweedle-Dee debates.

8. I doubt many minds were changed. I read the exchanges above, which were for the most part pretty good, and I don't think this debate helped the undecideds. Ornery will have to wait for the next debate.

 

[glenn1]

&quot;I oppose personal gun ownership because I see Americans drive every day....&quot;

Too bad that pesky Second Amendment is in place, eh ?