| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
10 Oct 2004 09:23:56 AM |
| Object: |
Aftermath of the Second Debate |
Now that some time has passed, it is clear that George Bush helped himself
in the second debate and won the night. Although its tough to find that
anywhere in the national press. I'll say it again, the national press have
damaged themselves beyond repair by being so deep in the tank for Kerry.
Bush was relaxed, jovial, forceful, and direct. Kerry, on the other hand,
started off with sharp rhetoric, but drained as the night wore on. Towards
the end, Kerry put on display for all to see his pompous, arrogant nature.
I also thought the questions asked were actually pretty good. None of this
"Your're our daddy, how will you take care of us?" crap.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that a main plank of the Kerry
strategy going into the final few weeks of the election is hoping for
George Bush to make a mistake of some kind, like in the first debate.
Democrats can't defend Kerry's senate record, flip-flops, or anything else
for that matter, but have as the only arrows left in their quiver is to
lie, make personal attacks, and hope George Bush goofs. Not a dominating
strategy.
Also, regardless of the bump Kerry received in the polls after the first
debate, VERY FEW MEMBERS OF CONGRESS running for re-election are proudly
having him in their districts or states to campaign. This is very telling.
Tom Daschle in South Dakota told the Kerry campaign directly to stay away,
and is telling the people of South Dakota that he is actually pro-life!
Democrats do not seem able to run in most national and state elections as
themselves. They are ever increasingly pretending to be moderate to
conservative in order to get elected. Once in power, they revert back to
their old liberal ways. Although I am not convinced yet, I think the
United States as a whole, is a more conservative nation. And it seems to
keep trending that way.
If George Bush can continue to project the confidence he exuded in the
second debate, he will win.
.
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
10 Oct 2004 12:57:20 PM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in post 0Cbad.10531$_g6.1218@okepread03
on 10/10/04 7:23 AM:
Now that some time has passed, it is clear that George Bush helped himself
in the second debate and won the night.
Yeah, his little temper tantrum was very presidential. Made me proud!
Although its tough to find that anywhere in the national press.
Gee, perhaps the press does not share your delusions?
I'll say it again, the national press have damaged themselves beyond repair by
being so deep in the tank for Kerry.
Is that why Fox felt the need to modify pictures of the two to make Bush
look taller?
Bush was relaxed, jovial, forceful, and direct.
Even in the midst of his temper tantrum where he refused to stop - as the
moderator repeatedly asked him to. They should have cut off his mic.
Kerry, on the other hand, started off with sharp rhetoric, but drained as the
night wore on.
He did lose some stream... maybe he expected Bush to be as bad as he was for
the first debate?
Towards the end, Kerry put on display for all to see his pompous, arrogant
nature. I also thought the questions asked were actually pretty good. None of
this "Your're our daddy, how will you take care of us?" crap.
I would agree that the questions were better than the others we have seen.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that a main plank of the Kerry
strategy going into the final few weeks of the election is hoping for
George Bush to make a mistake of some kind, like in the first debate.
You mean you missed all of his talk about his own issues? You must have had
to run to the potty or something for half the debate.
Democrats can't defend Kerry's senate record, flip-flops, or anything else
for that matter, but have as the only arrows left in their quiver is to
lie, make personal attacks, and hope George Bush goofs. Not a dominating
strategy.
Hmmm, that is basically what Bush does. His record is abysmal so he lies
about Kerry. Check out the site Cheney *meant* to send people to... even
their own sources do not support you.
--
Steve Carroll dreams I am a strawberry:
http://snipurl.com/9nuf
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
10 Oct 2004 01:42:21 PM |
|
|
Snit wrote:
[ ... ]
I'm curious about what someone sent to me.
http://www.spitfirelist.com/f473.html
Does any of this make more sense or what? Not sure yet.
--
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
10 Oct 2004 05:30:17 PM |
|
|
"GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in post
O_ydnQx9KPZrHPTcRVn-hA@bresnan.com on 10/10/04 11:42 AM:
Snit wrote:
[ ... ]
I'm curious about what someone sent to me.
http://www.spitfirelist.com/f473.html
Does any of this make more sense or what? Not sure yet.
Certainly did not read the whole thing, and have no intention of wasting my
time on it - but it seems to resemble the writing of a certain self
proclaimed troll hunter in csma - not saying it *is* his writing, but it is
certainly resembles his ramblings.
--
Steve Carroll dreams I am a strawberry:
http://snipurl.com/9nuf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
10 Oct 2004 03:34:58 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that a main plank of the Kerry
strategy going into the final few weeks of the election is hoping for
George Bush to make a mistake of some kind,
Not to worry, Bush has been making mistakes all during his whole time
in office. That's what Kerry is all about.
like in the first debate.
Democrats can't defend Kerry's senate record, flip-flops, or anything else
for that matter,
What you like to call "flip-flops" is nothing more than the process of
changing
ones mind as more facts are revealed .
You should try it sometime.
but have as the only arrows left in their quiver is to
lie, make personal attacks, and hope George Bush goofs. Not a dominating
strategy.
Also, regardless of the bump Kerry received in the polls after the first
debate, VERY FEW MEMBERS OF CONGRESS running for re-election are proudly
having him in their districts or states to campaign. This is very telling.
Tom Daschle in South Dakota told the Kerry campaign directly to stay away,
and is telling the people of South Dakota that he is actually pro-life!
Democrats do not seem able to run in most national and state elections as
themselves. They are ever increasingly pretending to be moderate to
conservative in order to get elected. Once in power, they revert back to
their old liberal ways. Although I am not convinced yet, I think the
United States as a whole, is a more conservative nation. And it seems to
keep trending that way.
If George Bush can continue to project the confidence he exuded in the
second debate, he will win.
That's not "confidence", that's denial.
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion = tyranny.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Garner Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
10 Oct 2004 10:53:17 AM |
|
|
In article <0Cbad.10531$_g6.1218@okepread03>, Gactimus
<gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Now that some time has passed, it is clear that George Bush helped himself
in the second debate and won the night.
I don't think that's clear at all.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that a main plank of the Kerry
strategy going into the final few weeks of the election is hoping for
George Bush to make a mistake of some kind, like in the first debate.
He doesn't have to wait. Bush does it every time he opens his mouth.
In that debate alone, he referred to "the internets," called his
opponent Senator Kennedy, flat-out lied about the scope of the Patriot
Act, said it was "news to him" that he owned part of a timber company
(he does), and it went on and on.
His claim that safety is the reason for blocking drugs from Canadian
pharmacies is laughable. "Show me the dead Canadians," as Minnesota's
governor put it. As in so many other industries, he's in the drug
companies' pocket, too.
There were exaggerations on both sides, to be sure, but Kerry was much
more in command of the facts than Bush.
Read it yourself: http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
10 Oct 2004 11:11:50 AM |
|
|
On 2004-10-10 08:53:17 -0700, Garner Miller <garner@netstreet.net> said:
In article <0Cbad.10531$_g6.1218@okepread03>, Gactimus
<gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Now that some time has passed, it is clear that George Bush helped himself
in the second debate and won the night.
I don't think that's clear at all.
Actually, the polls say Bush lost, by a slight margin, and when you
take into account the party affiliation of those who watched, Bush lost
by a larger margin. Gactimus, like most right wingers, has trouble
with reality.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that a main plank of the Kerry
strategy going into the final few weeks of the election is hoping for
George Bush to make a mistake of some kind, like in the first debate.
He doesn't have to wait. Bush does it every time he opens his mouth.
In that debate alone, he referred to "the internets," called his
opponent Senator Kennedy, flat-out lied about the scope of the Patriot
Act, said it was "news to him" that he owned part of a timber company
(he does), and it went on and on.
His claim that safety is the reason for blocking drugs from Canadian
pharmacies is laughable. "Show me the dead Canadians," as Minnesota's
governor put it. As in so many other industries, he's in the drug
companies' pocket, too.
There were exaggerations on both sides, to be sure, but Kerry was much
more in command of the facts than Bush.
Read it yourself: http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html
Bush screwed up in the first debate because he was trying to listen to
the instructions being fed to him over the wireless earpiece he was
wearing.
Evidence:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000637.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
10 Oct 2004 03:43:05 PM |
|
|
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101009115075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
On 2004-10-10 08:53:17 -0700, Garner Miller <garner@netstreet.net> said:
In article <0Cbad.10531$_g6.1218@okepread03>, Gactimus
<gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Now that some time has passed, it is clear that George Bush helped
himself in the second debate and won the night.
I don't think that's clear at all.
Actually, the polls say Bush lost, by a slight margin, and when you
take into account the party affiliation of those who watched, Bush lost
by a larger margin. Gactimus, like most right wingers, has trouble
with reality.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that a main plank of the Kerry
strategy going into the final few weeks of the election is hoping for
George Bush to make a mistake of some kind, like in the first debate.
He doesn't have to wait. Bush does it every time he opens his mouth.
In that debate alone, he referred to "the internets," called his
opponent Senator Kennedy, flat-out lied about the scope of the Patriot
Act, said it was "news to him" that he owned part of a timber company
(he does), and it went on and on.
His claim that safety is the reason for blocking drugs from Canadian
pharmacies is laughable. "Show me the dead Canadians," as Minnesota's
governor put it. As in so many other industries, he's in the drug
companies' pocket, too.
There were exaggerations on both sides, to be sure, but Kerry was much
more in command of the facts than Bush.
Read it yourself: http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html
Bush screwed up in the first debate because he was trying to listen to
the instructions being fed to him over the wireless earpiece he was
wearing.
Evidence:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000637.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html
That's not evidence. It's idiot left desperation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
10 Oct 2004 03:54:10 PM |
|
|
On 2004-10-10 13:43:05 -0700, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> said:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101009115075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
On 2004-10-10 08:53:17 -0700, Garner Miller <garner@netstreet.net> said:
In article <0Cbad.10531$_g6.1218@okepread03>, Gactimus
<gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Now that some time has passed, it is clear that George Bush helped
himself in the second debate and won the night.
I don't think that's clear at all.
Actually, the polls say Bush lost, by a slight margin, and when you
take into account the party affiliation of those who watched, Bush lost
by a larger margin. Gactimus, like most right wingers, has trouble
with reality.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that a main plank of the Kerry
strategy going into the final few weeks of the election is hoping for
George Bush to make a mistake of some kind, like in the first debate.
He doesn't have to wait. Bush does it every time he opens his mouth.
In that debate alone, he referred to "the internets," called his
opponent Senator Kennedy, flat-out lied about the scope of the Patriot
Act, said it was "news to him" that he owned part of a timber company
(he does), and it went on and on.
His claim that safety is the reason for blocking drugs from Canadian
pharmacies is laughable. "Show me the dead Canadians," as Minnesota's
governor put it. As in so many other industries, he's in the drug
companies' pocket, too.
There were exaggerations on both sides, to be sure, but Kerry was much
more in command of the facts than Bush.
Read it yourself: http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html
Bush screwed up in the first debate because he was trying to listen to
the instructions being fed to him over the wireless earpiece he was
wearing.
Evidence:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000637.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html
That's not evidence. It's idiot left desperation.
No, it’s evidence. Your denial is right wing desperation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
11 Oct 2004 08:44:22 AM |
|
|
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101013541075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
On 2004-10-10 13:43:05 -0700, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> said:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101009115075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
Bush screwed up in the first debate because he was trying to listen to
the instructions being fed to him over the wireless earpiece he was
wearing.
Evidence:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000637.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html
That's not evidence. It's idiot left desperation.
No, it's evidence. Your denial is right wing desperation.
So where's the evidence, idiot?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
11 Oct 2004 09:37:29 AM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:cke2nm$m6e$1@news1.usf.edu...
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101013541075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
On 2004-10-10 13:43:05 -0700, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> said:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101009115075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
Bush screwed up in the first debate because he was trying to listen to
the instructions being fed to him over the wireless earpiece he was
wearing.
Evidence:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000637.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html
That's not evidence. It's idiot left desperation.
No, it's evidence. Your denial is right wing desperation.
So where's the evidence, idiot?
He talks about right wing desperation...and look at the issue he is trying
to raise...ROFL
Oh you gotta love the irony.
Read his sources, they are more left than Michael Baldwin
I have noted that lib's like Elmo can't find credible sources.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
21 Oct 2004 10:13:41 AM |
|
|
In article <yeKdnerR9ctMBPfcRVn-uQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:cke2nm$m6e$1@news1.usf.edu...
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101013541075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
On 2004-10-10 13:43:05 -0700, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> said:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101009115075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
Bush screwed up in the first debate because he was trying to listen to
the instructions being fed to him over the wireless earpiece he was
wearing.
Evidence:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000637.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html
That's not evidence. It's idiot left desperation.
No, it's evidence. Your denial is right wing desperation.
So where's the evidence, idiot?
He talks about right wing desperation...and look at the issue he is trying
to raise...ROFL
Look how the RepublicaNS have no response.
Oh you gotta love the irony.
Read his sources, they are more left than Michael Baldwin
When you are in trouble, attack the sources. COWARD.
I have noted that lib's like Elmo can't find credible sources.
Like Fox News, right? How can you be such a dumb *****? Look at the
pictures! When you are stuck you claim the sources are too liberal for
you. What is liberal about the pictures? What you are saying is that
if a site prints the real truth, if they gives you evidence, when they
actually show you the pictures so you can make an intelligent decision
yourself, they are too liberal. Now that says something about the
Right.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
11 Oct 2004 10:38:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:37:29 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:cke2nm$m6e$1@news1.usf.edu...
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101013541075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
On 2004-10-10 13:43:05 -0700, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> said:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101009115075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
Bush screwed up in the first debate because he was trying to listen to
the instructions being fed to him over the wireless earpiece he was
wearing.
Evidence:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000637.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html
That's not evidence. It's idiot left desperation.
No, it's evidence. Your denial is right wing desperation.
So where's the evidence, idiot?
He talks about right wing desperation...and look at the issue he is trying
to raise...ROFL
Oh you gotta love the irony.
Read his sources, they are more left than Michael Baldwin
I have noted that lib's like Elmo can't find credible sources.
I notice that you're merely attacking the sources instead of examining
the stories - something you once swore up and down you didn't do.
---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."
President George W. Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
11 Oct 2004 02:27:02 PM |
|
|
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:97alm09oc3gilr09ps8ggk0utl77u9sgoj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:37:29 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:cke2nm$m6e$1@news1.usf.edu...
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101013541075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
On 2004-10-10 13:43:05 -0700, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> said:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101009115075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
Bush screwed up in the first debate because he was trying to listen
to
the instructions being fed to him over the wireless earpiece he was
wearing.
Evidence:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000637.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html
That's not evidence. It's idiot left desperation.
No, it's evidence. Your denial is right wing desperation.
So where's the evidence, idiot?
He talks about right wing desperation...and look at the issue he is trying
to raise...ROFL
Oh you gotta love the irony.
Read his sources, they are more left than Michael Baldwin
I have noted that lib's like Elmo can't find credible sources.
I notice that you're merely attacking the sources instead of examining
the stories - something you once swore up and down you didn't do.
I have examined them Adam and they are a joke. And where are you when
people attack Fox news?
Answer: nowhere.
So don't suddenly pretend you are concerned about someone attacking the
sources.
If Bush was wearing a monitor, which there is absolutley no proof of, it is
very possible that being a President he has to wear something, in case there
is ever a national emergency.
I watched that debate, and no...he wasn't being coached. No evidence. Just
a left wing newspaper trying to stir up another lie.
Do you read the national enquirer too Adam?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
21 Oct 2004 10:16:04 AM |
|
|
In article <24qdnaDNXt0kQPfcRVn-sw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:97alm09oc3gilr09ps8ggk0utl77u9sgoj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:37:29 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:cke2nm$m6e$1@news1.usf.edu...
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101013541075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
On 2004-10-10 13:43:05 -0700, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> said:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101009115075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
Bush screwed up in the first debate because he was trying to listen
to
the instructions being fed to him over the wireless earpiece he was
wearing.
Evidence:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000637.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html
That's not evidence. It's idiot left desperation.
No, it's evidence. Your denial is right wing desperation.
So where's the evidence, idiot?
He talks about right wing desperation...and look at the issue he is trying
to raise...ROFL
Oh you gotta love the irony.
Read his sources, they are more left than Michael Baldwin
I have noted that lib's like Elmo can't find credible sources.
I notice that you're merely attacking the sources instead of examining
the stories - something you once swore up and down you didn't do.
I have examined them Adam and they are a joke. And where are you when
people attack Fox news?
Answer: nowhere.
Except that Fox News has been repeatedly discredited. These sites have
not.
So don't suddenly pretend you are concerned about someone attacking the
sources.
If Bush was wearing a monitor, which there is absolutley no proof of, it is
very possible that being a President he has to wear something, in case there
is ever a national emergency.
I watched that debate, and no...he wasn't being coached. No evidence. Just
a left wing newspaper trying to stir up another lie.
Do you read the national enquirer too Adam?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
11 Oct 2004 08:05:48 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:97alm09oc3gilr09ps8ggk0utl77u9sgoj@4ax.com...
I notice that you're merely attacking the sources instead of examining
the stories - something you once swore up and down you didn't do.
I have examined them Adam and they are a joke. And where are you when
people attack Fox news?
Answer: nowhere.
So don't suddenly pretend you are concerned about someone attacking the
sources.
If Bush was wearing a monitor, which there is absolutley no proof of, it is
very possible that being a President he has to wear something, in case there
is ever a national emergency.
I watched that debate, and no...he wasn't being coached. No evidence. Just
a left wing newspaper trying to stir up another lie.
Do you read the national enquirer too Adam?
Regarding the whole "monitor" conspiracy, who cares? as the BBC
comentator said, even if there were a monitor, it didn't help him in any
way, shape or form.
What I would love to see is a forum where by Joe and Jane Average can
stand up, and ask the candidate directly a question; off the cuff, no
preparation. Put both candidates on the back foot.
Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could ever
have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form
of government except all those other forms that have been tried from
time to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
11 Oct 2004 05:35:54 PM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:97alm09oc3gilr09ps8ggk0utl77u9sgoj@4ax.com:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:37:29 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:cke2nm$m6e$1@news1.usf.edu...
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101013541075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
On 2004-10-10 13:43:05 -0700, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> said:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101009115075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
Bush screwed up in the first debate because he was trying to listen
to the instructions being fed to him over the wireless earpiece he
was wearing.
Evidence:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000637.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html
That's not evidence. It's idiot left desperation.
No, it's evidence. Your denial is right wing desperation.
So where's the evidence, idiot?
He talks about right wing desperation...and look at the issue he is
trying to raise...ROFL
Oh you gotta love the irony.
Read his sources, they are more left than Michael Baldwin
I have noted that lib's like Elmo can't find credible sources.
I notice that you're merely attacking the sources instead of examining
the stories - something you once swore up and down you didn't do.
No need to attack the sources since the claims are obviously bogus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
21 Oct 2004 10:09:04 AM |
|
|
In article <cke2nm$m6e$1@news1.usf.edu>, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
wrote:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101013541075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
On 2004-10-10 13:43:05 -0700, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> said:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in
news:2004101009115075249%efspro@bartoludeledu:
Bush screwed up in the first debate because he was trying to listen to
the instructions being fed to him over the wireless earpiece he was
wearing.
Evidence:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000637.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html
That's not evidence. It's idiot left desperation.
No, it's evidence. Your denial is right wing desperation.
So where's the evidence, idiot?
What don't you understand about evidence? A picture is evidence,
*****!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
10 Oct 2004 09:56:10 PM |
|
|
Elmo wrote:
On 2004-10-10 08:53:17 -0700, Garner Miller <garner@netstreet.net> said:
In article <0Cbad.10531$_g6.1218@okepread03>, Gactimus
<gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
Now that some time has passed, it is clear that George Bush helped
himself
in the second debate and won the night.
I don't think that's clear at all.
Actually, the polls say Bush lost, by a slight margin, and when you take
into account the party affiliation of those who watched, Bush lost by a
larger margin. Gactimus, like most right wingers, has trouble with
reality.
True, but the problem is, the after poll isn't always a true reflection
on how well a candidate is going; for example, in Australia Mark Lathem
*easily* won the debates, *easily* won the campaign, but unfortunately
when push came to shove the Australian voter decided to stick with the
Liberals rather than changing to a Mark Lathem lead Labour government.
Bush may lose these debates, but remember, never underestimate the
number of redneck hicks out there who will vote for GWB because he one
of the "good ole boys".
Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could ever
have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form
of government except all those other forms that have been tried from
time to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
10 Oct 2004 11:23:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:56:10 +1000, in alt.politics.homosexuality
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
| Elmo wrote:
| > On 2004-10-10 08:53:17 -0700, Garner Miller <garner@netstreet.net> said:
| >
| >> In article <0Cbad.10531$_g6.1218@okepread03>, Gactimus
| >> <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
| >>
| >>> Now that some time has passed, it is clear that George Bush helped
| >>> himself
| >>> in the second debate and won the night.
| >>
| >>
| >> I don't think that's clear at all.
| >
| >
| > Actually, the polls say Bush lost, by a slight margin, and when you take
| > into account the party affiliation of those who watched, Bush lost by a
| > larger margin. Gactimus, like most right wingers, has trouble with
| > reality.
|
| True, but the problem is, the after poll isn't always a true reflection
| on how well a candidate is going; for example, in Australia Mark Lathem
| *easily* won the debates, *easily* won the campaign, but unfortunately
| when push came to shove the Australian voter decided to stick with the
| Liberals rather than changing to a Mark Lathem lead Labour government.
|
| Bush may lose these debates, but remember, never underestimate the
| number of redneck hicks out there who will vote for GWB because he one
| of the "good ole boys".
To compound the 'problem' not all Americans will vote (unlike
Australia where every person of voting has is required by law to cast
a vote).
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
11 Oct 2004 12:52:23 AM |
|
|
Jeff North wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:56:10 +1000, in alt.politics.homosexuality
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
| Elmo wrote:
| > On 2004-10-10 08:53:17 -0700, Garner Miller <garner@netstreet.net> said:
| >
| >> In article <0Cbad.10531$_g6.1218@okepread03>, Gactimus
| >> <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
| >>
| >>> Now that some time has passed, it is clear that George Bush helped
| >>> himself
| >>> in the second debate and won the night.
| >>
| >>
| >> I don't think that's clear at all.
| >
| >
| > Actually, the polls say Bush lost, by a slight margin, and when you take
| > into account the party affiliation of those who watched, Bush lost by a
| > larger margin. Gactimus, like most right wingers, has trouble with
| > reality.
|
| True, but the problem is, the after poll isn't always a true reflection
| on how well a candidate is going; for example, in Australia Mark Lathem
| *easily* won the debates, *easily* won the campaign, but unfortunately
| when push came to shove the Australian voter decided to stick with the
| Liberals rather than changing to a Mark Lathem lead Labour government.
|
| Bush may lose these debates, but remember, never underestimate the
| number of redneck hicks out there who will vote for GWB because he one
| of the "good ole boys".
To compound the 'problem' not all Americans will vote (unlike
Australia where every person of voting has is required by law to cast
a vote).
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
True, its interesting however, that even in some countries that have
volunteer voting, there is still a better turn out than in the US; with
that being said, the system in the US isn't exactly representative,
especially when you have a two party system with bugger all chance of a
third party squeezing in.
Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could ever
have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form
of government except all those other forms that have been tried from
time to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
11 Oct 2004 01:04:53 AM |
|
|
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2sulcqF1mcgntU1@uni-berlin.de...
Jeff North wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:56:10 +1000, in alt.politics.homosexuality
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
| Elmo wrote:
| > On 2004-10-10 08:53:17 -0700, Garner Miller <garner@netstreet.net>
said:
| > | >> In article <0Cbad.10531$_g6.1218@okepread03>, Gactimus
| >> <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
| >>
| >>> Now that some time has passed, it is clear that George Bush helped
| >>> himself
| >>> in the second debate and won the night.
| >>
| >>
| >> I don't think that's clear at all.
| > | > | > Actually, the polls say Bush lost, by a slight margin, and
when you take | > into account the party affiliation of those who
watched, Bush lost by a | > larger margin. Gactimus, like most right
wingers, has trouble with | > reality.
| | True, but the problem is, the after poll isn't always a true
reflection | on how well a candidate is going; for example, in Australia
Mark Lathem | *easily* won the debates, *easily* won the campaign, but
unfortunately | when push came to shove the Australian voter decided to
stick with the | Liberals rather than changing to a Mark Lathem lead
Labour government.
| | Bush may lose these debates, but remember, never underestimate the |
number of redneck hicks out there who will vote for GWB because he one |
of the "good ole boys".
To compound the 'problem' not all Americans will vote (unlike
Australia where every person of voting has is required by law to cast
a vote).
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
True, its interesting however, that even in some countries that have
volunteer voting, there is still a better turn out than in the US; with
that being said, the system in the US isn't exactly representative,
especially when you have a two party system with bugger all chance of a
third party squeezing in.
True. Historically, all a third party candidate has ever managed to
accomplish is to split the vote sufficiently to ensure another term for the
incumbent.
Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could ever
have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form
of government except all those other forms that have been tried from
time to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
11 Oct 2004 07:08:59 AM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2sulcqF1mcgntU1@uni-berlin.de...
Jeff North wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:56:10 +1000, in alt.politics.homosexuality
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
| Elmo wrote:
| > On 2004-10-10 08:53:17 -0700, Garner Miller <garner@netstreet.net>
said:
| > | >> In article <0Cbad.10531$_g6.1218@okepread03>, Gactimus
| >> <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
| >>
| >>> Now that some time has passed, it is clear that George Bush helped
| >>> himself
| >>> in the second debate and won the night.
| >>
| >>
| >> I don't think that's clear at all.
| > | > | > Actually, the polls say Bush lost, by a slight margin, and
when you take | > into account the party affiliation of those who
watched, Bush lost by a | > larger margin. Gactimus, like most right
wingers, has trouble with | > reality.
| | True, but the problem is, the after poll isn't always a true
reflection | on how well a candidate is going; for example, in Australia
Mark Lathem | *easily* won the debates, *easily* won the campaign, but
unfortunately | when push came to shove the Australian voter decided to
stick with the | Liberals rather than changing to a Mark Lathem lead
Labour government.
| | Bush may lose these debates, but remember, never underestimate the |
number of redneck hicks out there who will vote for GWB because he one |
of the "good ole boys".
To compound the 'problem' not all Americans will vote (unlike
Australia where every person of voting has is required by law to cast
a vote).
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorth@yourpantsbigpond.net.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
True, its interesting however, that even in some countries that have
volunteer voting, there is still a better turn out than in the US; with
that being said, the system in the US isn't exactly representative,
especially when you have a two party system with bugger all chance of a
third party squeezing in.
True. Historically, all a third party candidate has ever managed to
accomplish is to split the vote sufficiently to ensure another term for the
incumbent.
True, and FPP and preferential voting which the UK and Australia uses
respectively are flawed as well. The one which Germany and NZ use is
probably about the most represenative; the ability for smaller parties
like the Greens and other small parties to get into parliament, form a
coalition with a larger party and hopefully get some of their policies
through (of course, with a bit of give and take with the larger partner).
If the US ever were to reform the whole governmental structure, the best
model which would provide maximum voice to all parties would be how
Germany operates; a figure head president voted in my parliament (has no
executive powers), and the power of government resides in the parliament.
Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could ever
have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form
of government except all those other forms that have been tried from
time to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mel" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
11 Oct 2004 06:25:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:08:59 +1000, Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
message <2svbf9F1pmhe9U1@uni-berlin.de>:
True, and FPP and preferential voting which the UK and Australia uses
respectively are flawed as well. The one which Germany and NZ use is
probably about the most represenative; the ability for smaller parties
like the Greens and other small parties to get into parliament, form a
coalition with a larger party and hopefully get some of their policies
through (of course, with a bit of give and take with the larger partner).
If the US ever were to reform the whole governmental structure, the best
model which would provide maximum voice to all parties would be how
Germany operates; a figure head president voted in my parliament (has no
executive powers), and the power of government resides in the parliament.
Matty
***** Germany.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/
Cape Town news
http://adderleystreet.co.za/capetown/
.
|
|
|
| User: "GP of ATJ" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
11 Oct 2004 10:09:38 PM |
|
|
"Mel" <mel@atj.fag.com> wrote in message
news:ekdlm09d5ak1pl5g7dbapedq8it33nm46o@4ax.com...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:08:59 +1000, Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
message <2svbf9F1pmhe9U1@uni-berlin.de>:
True, and FPP and preferential voting which the UK and Australia uses
respectively are flawed as well. The one which Germany and NZ use is
probably about the most represenative; the ability for smaller parties
like the Greens and other small parties to get into parliament, form a
coalition with a larger party and hopefully get some of their policies
through (of course, with a bit of give and take with the larger partner).
If the US ever were to reform the whole governmental structure, the best
model which would provide maximum voice to all parties would be how
Germany operates; a figure head president voted in my parliament (has no
executive powers), and the power of government resides in the parliament.
Matty
***** Germany.
i doubt you could fag boy.
A married couple, both 60 years old, were celebrating their 35th
anniversary. During their party, a fairy appeared to congratulate them and
grant them each one wish. The wife wanted to travel around the world. The
fairy waved her wand and poof - the wife had tickets in her hand for a world
cruise. Next, the fairy asked the husband what he wanted. He said; "I wish I
had a wife 30 years younger than me." So the the fairy picked up her wand
and poof - the husband was 90.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfag.com
http://www.atjfag.com/
Fag Town news
http://adderleystreet.co.za/capetown/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Aftermath of the Second Debate |
10 Oct 2004 10:08:42 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:23:56 +0000, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
message news:<0Cbad.10531$_g6.1218@okepread03>:
Now
Still smarting, Xomicron?
http://peanut-gallery.kadaitcha.cx/xomicron.html
--
Funny Sister Lurlean quote #56:
"I know that most of them Mexicans got smegma on account of I can smell it for
myself."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
