Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
USAirways737
Topic Author
Posts: 986
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 7:20 am

Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Wed Oct 04, 2000 11:41 am

I think Gore won it but he got annoying and seemed desperate to do better than Bush. Who do you think won the Debate and Why?
 
Guest

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Wed Oct 04, 2000 11:48 am

I definately think Bush won the debate this evening. You could really tell Gore was getting anxious toward the end, and was evading many points that Bush brought up. Another thing I noticed is that Gore would never look up while Bush was talking unless he was trying to talk over him. Also, did you noticed he talked right over moderator Jim Lehrer toward the end as he was trying to wrap it up? Definately a poor performance for Gore.
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Wed Oct 04, 2000 11:50 am

It did get kind of annoying when Gore kept mentioning that "wealthiest 1% who get the tax cut under Governor Bush's plan" over and over again at every possible opportunity. Gore was also pedantic, almost downright cocky with his remarks. Therefore it was kind of funny during when he was acting that way while totally skewering Russia's position on Milosevic.

Bush seemed like he was on the defensive a lot.

I would agree that Gore got the upper-hand in this one.

Aaron G.
 
aileron
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:39 pm

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Wed Oct 04, 2000 11:52 am

miaooowwww.
i reckon big Al won. He hushed Bush.
Forget fuzzy math, what about fuzzy hair?
Ready For Take-Off
 
Hole_Courtney
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 1999 12:51 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Wed Oct 04, 2000 12:16 pm

Bush did the right thing: he let Al Gore talk a lot and become a pompous asshole. That was certainly not a shining moment for gore.

Both candidates had a problem of interrupting each other; Gore did this more than Bush, though.

Neither of them would shut up with the stupid campaigne retoric "wealthiest one percent" "fuzzy math" jesus christ it was annoying.

Jim Lehrer was probably thinking "Why did I EVER agree to do this"

My scorecard for tongiht (3 october) is :

Gore: 0
Bush: .05

They both were annoying as hell, but Gore was the bigger ass most of the time.
"[He] knew everything about literature, except how to enjoy it." - Yossarian, Catch 22
 
Guest

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Wed Oct 04, 2000 12:39 pm

Bush tore Gore a new one!
 
travelin man
Posts: 3240
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Wed Oct 04, 2000 12:40 pm

Gore won on the issues, but he was annoying. I actually switched channels when he started talking about Bush's tax plan for the umpteenth time.

Bush was on the defensive, and got a little strident himself.

Neither candidate looked great though. Clinton would kill either of them in a debate.
 
nwa man
Posts: 1752
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 1999 3:24 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Wed Oct 04, 2000 12:55 pm

I heard tonight that Bush is somewhat dyslexic...is this true? Maybe that would explain some of his pauses, and maybe it would explain why he looked so damn uncomfortable.

Although, it could be that Bush was just being beaten by Gore, who didn't dance around the issues like Bush.

Both candidates got their cheapshots in though. Bush's "I guess you invented the calculator too" was great, and Gore's shot at 'W' on the military issue about Bush being unpatriotic was intelligent as well.

I think Gore won this one, although both candidates got their points across.

NWA Man
Create your own luck.
 
chris28_17
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2000 4:26 am

The Little Lady From Iowa...

Wed Oct 04, 2000 12:56 pm

I think bush should have pointed out Gore's distortions and lies more than he did.... Other than that I would say Bush did well, i think Gore did look like an arrogant robot.

For those of you who heard the story of the little lady from Altoona, Iowa (i actually lived there for 5 years, its a suburb of Des Moines) who "picks up cans to pay for her precription drugs" well, first of all, that was a set-up... anyway, he (Gore) used her story at the end of his closing statement to tug at the heartstrings of the viewing public. The simple fact is that this "innocent poor, poor old lady" has a son that is one of the wealthiest business men in Des Moines and really has no financial problems.

This is just another disgusting political trick used by liberals to make themselves look "caring" and "compassionate" when the simple fact is that they are the ones with no morals.

The worst thing, in my opinion, is that unfortunately people are falling for it.

CHRIS
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2541
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Wed Oct 04, 2000 3:31 pm

Gore seemed a little arrogant and obsessive, but he seemed much more on top of the issues at hand.

Bush looked a little bit relaxed, but also seemed to be just buying his time until he could insert a pre-thought one-liner to try and win the audience.

Gore won, but not as much as he could have.

Hamlet69
All gave some. Some gave all.
 
Guest

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Wed Oct 04, 2000 4:06 pm

Bush is such an idiot! You nailed it Ham69. He uses stuoid, childish one liners, I'm sure he didnt even think of! What a moron. Fuzzy Math? Ha Fuzzy brains you MORON!
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Wed Oct 04, 2000 4:59 pm

Same Lies different days.....

One day there will be a free Alaska...

Alaska Indepence Party
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Guest

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Wed Oct 04, 2000 5:00 pm

I would like Bush to win, and I think he needs to smoke more cigars on this compaign trail. That will confuse the democrats a Cigar in Bush, you have to vote for that!
Iain
 
n4khgirl
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 11:46 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Wed Oct 04, 2000 6:31 pm

Hey yall, i saw the debate last night, & i really think it sucked. I tend to be a little more towards the right, (pro-gun *we need better gun control tho*, and lower taxes for everyone & stuff like that), but i really think Bush blew. Then Gore got soooo annoying!! I think this election is a big joke w/the candidates we have now...
 
chris28_17
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2000 4:26 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 12:08 am

I actually thought the "fuzzy math" thing was pretty good... and "gore invented the calculator"

By the way folks, for those who dont know where that whole thing came from, Gore swears that HE invented the internet!! (which makes me wonder why he cant seem to find hundreds of emails...) Gore thinks this!! he is nuts! i cant believe anyone would be foolish enough to vote for him.

And Bush? well hes not my first choice but I feel its my civic duty to vote (besides, i feel you have NO right to complain about the government unless you vote) so in a sense im voting against Gore...


CHRIS
 
Guest

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 12:32 am

THE MOST ANNOYING thing about the debate was how Al Bore kept sighing and moaning every time the Guv said anything at all! Jesus Christ! Shut the hell up Gore!

Another annoying thing was how Gore wouldn't drop his typical liberal "wealthiest 1%" class-warfare mantra, when the fact is that Gore's tax cut is a goddamn joke.

Bush played his cards right. By being low key and relaxed, he let Gore make himself look like he was totally over the top.

I'd say Bush 1, Gore 0.
 
travelin man
Posts: 3240
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 1:01 am

The most interesting moment to me was when they were talking about the Serbian elections and how to resolve the situation if Milosevic doesn't leave office.

Bush said we should have the Russians mediate the situation.

Gore said, in theory, yeah, but the U.S. believes Milosevic should step down while the Russians want to Serbia to have a run-off election. He pointed this out to Bush, who said, "well OBVIOUSLY we'd make sure the Russians agree with us before we have them mediate."

Al Gore -- "Well, they don't!"

To me it just reconfirmed to me how little Bush knows about world affairs, and the world in general.
 
Ilyushin96M
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 3:15 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 1:12 am

This whole election is getting more and more pathetic all the time. I didn't watch the debate, because I had more important things to so. And I wouldn't have if I didn't.

To hell with Bush and Gore. I'm voting Nader!
 
travelin man
Posts: 3240
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: Ilyushin - A Question.

Thu Oct 05, 2000 1:17 am

Are you voting FOR Nader or AGAINST Bush and Gore? Do you really agree with Nader's policies?
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Chris W. Bush

Thu Oct 05, 2000 1:26 am

Oh god, you are SOOO predictable. OF COURSE you would like the "fuzzy math" comments. Obviously, when a candidate has destroyed most of his brain cells through alcohol and cocaine usage, simple addition and subtraction would certainly seem fuzzy. I can understand how you would relate to that.

Now for a more balanced opinion:

I was disappointed by Gore's performance and Bush exceeded my expectations (which, admittedly, were quite low). Gore was too aggressive and too repetitive. Also, I don't know if anyone else here noticed this, but he was made up to look and act like Reagan (makeup, hairstyle, head movements). As expected, Bush didn't come across as the brightest bulb on the tree, and his personal attacks were ineffective. But he did have some good answers, and I think he may have come across as more palatable to the average joe. I think Gore's hammering on the numbers went over a lot of people's heads. But I do believe Gore was much clearer than Bush as to where he stands on issues like abortion, campaign finance reform and environmental policy.

I think the next two debates will be more interesting.

An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Travelin Man

Thu Oct 05, 2000 1:28 am

Hey dude. I thought you were supposed to be at your client working  . Are we still on for tonight?
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
travelin man
Posts: 3240
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: TWFirst

Thu Oct 05, 2000 1:35 am

LOL Fuzzy math... We're definitely on! Uh....Yeah, I am working.... ummm...see?....I am typing.....yeah that's it...   What about you? Shouldn't you be insuring somebody or something?
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 1:46 am

Insuring? The only thing I'll be insuring (or ensuring) today is that I have a lunch break. I'll call you later.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Chris W.

Thu Oct 05, 2000 1:58 am

I just read your post in the Bush campaign material thread. I wanted to acknowledge and thank you for your compliment and let you know I too enjoy interaction in this forum, and regardless of how "pointed" my comments might be sometimes, I do appreciate and respect you as a human with opinions...


Even though they're really STUPID opinions  

   


Just kidding. Later dude.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
Greeneyes53787
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 10:34 am

RE: Top 1%

Thu Oct 05, 2000 5:45 am

Probably the sophisticated idea of Bush's tax plan is to empower those who empower those. In other words, give the top 1% a tax break and expect to see those who work for those people given incentives for their productivity. It's a basic conservative point of view.

Democrats seldom seem to understand this idea--but some actually do and embrace it. Whether it works or not is difficult to measure. And as a conservative myself I admit that it may or may not help. However, to grab a soundbite and complain about Bush's top 1% is probably not exactly responsible.

About the debate itself...
The network I was watching (NBC) added up the errors of each candidate debating, and showed by their own tally that Gore made many more errors.

Whether Bush is a good guy or Gore is- is almost entirely a decision you can make for yourself.

As we set out to elect a president let us remember that we get more in unity than we can being in a fight.

GE
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: "G.E."

Thu Oct 05, 2000 6:14 am

Oh, I think Democrats have little problem understanding this concept. It's called trickle-down economics. Reagan introduced the idea back in the 80's. It didn't work then, and you're correct to question whether it will work now. The way you described it, it sounds as if you're talking about a tax break to business owners. I think Bush's plan calls for a tax break to the top 1% of individual taxpayers. There's a difference.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
LH423
Posts: 5924
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 6:27 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 6:17 am

According to a questionaire done by the Boston Herald of 8 people, Gore did better with those 8 than Bush. I think that most Bay Staters would agree, but Massachusetts is very democratic, so I think most Bostonians get a biased result.

LH423
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
 
Guest

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 7:08 am

Theres a reason why Massachusettes is more educated, sophisticated, and simply important than say.....Iowa.
 
Guest

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 7:38 am

That "1%" thing Algore kept repeating was really getting on me...
Anyway- OBVIOUSLY the rich are going to get a BIGGER tax cut becuase it is all PROPORTIONAL! The rich pay more taxes than a McDonalds worker, so they get a larger tax cut (not larger in percent, for clarification).
If you read the Washington Post, watch the other liberal media, IT IS APPARENT that Bush did better than Gore. Many liberals did admit Algore didn't do as well a job as he should have. Polls are also showing that Gore and Bush are within the margin of error as for the public's opinion on who won.
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 8:52 am

I think Gore won, only because he has better debating skills. Bush, who ahas admitted he is weak at the live debates appeared to struggle many times. I am a Bush supporter, but both of them are just talking shit. As a member of the military, I don't put any trust in what a politician says, no matter who he is.
 
DeltaRNOmd-80
Posts: 1979
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 7:42 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 9:00 am

Gore was a pompous ass, he kept on wheezing into the mic when Bush was talking, and Gore was talking about the 'wealthies 1%' BS. I think Bush could have done better, tho. He seemed to stutter and pause a little too much and use the term "fuzzy math" too much, but If i could vote, I would vote for Bush. The inventing the calculator thing was hilarious and the part where Bush attacked Gores fundraising techniques   Go Bush!
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 9:34 am

Gore won the debate!  

Bush lost!

What bugs me about the whole debate is that Al Gore is being measured by tougher standards than Bush Jr. The right-wing media gave us the impression that all Bush Jr. has to do is show up to the debate and he wins. Gore has to outline his policies to convence the voters. I think thats un-fair!
I could have done a better job against Al Gore myself!
George Bush Jr. is simply DUMB and even his most loyal supporters know it.

I know Al Gore my not be the most entertaining polititian, but so what!
Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the President must be entertaining.! George Bush Jr. isn't enteraining anyway. He is the dumbest republican presidential candidate in modern memory! Gerald Ford and Bob Dole had some intelligence. I feel sorry for true republicans that really wants to have a candidate that truly believes in a less intrusive government. Bush is not there man.

I expect a president to be smart and experienced. That = Al Gore whether you like him or not!
Bring back the Concorde
 
Guest

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 10:01 am

They're both idiots. They;re Veeps are both a little whacko. The only difference is that at least Gore remembers the lower classes of our society and keeps them from getting forgotten in our time of unparalled prosperity.
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2541
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 10:12 am

There was an article in the paper today, pointing out where each candidate stretched the truth, or tried not to say too much of it. Thought it would add to this discussion:

Bush

STATEMENT: "this man has outspent me" in the campaign.
TRUTH: Bush spent $93M in primaries, compared to $46M Gore spent. Also, Bush has spent twice as much of his $67.6M Federal allotment than Gore so far.

STATEMENT: Questioned where the $1 trillion would come from to pay for Bush's partial privitization of Social Security, Bush responds the money "comes from the surplus."
TRUTH: Bush's proposed tax cuts and spending programs already use the entire surplus.

STATEMENT: Gore accuses Bush that his plan to add prescription drugs to Medicare doesn't cover middle-class seniors during its first few years. Bush responds with one of many "fuzzy math" comments.
TRUTH: Unless the patient's prescription drugs reach $6,000 or more, Bush's plan only includes low-income seniors for the first 4 years.

STATEMENT: Gore's now (in)famous accusation that all of Bush's domestic spending does not add up to the tax break for the top 1%. Bush responds with the 'Internet/Calculator' pun, and another "fuzzy math" comment.
TRUTH: Bush never argues Gore's point, nor contradicts it.

STATEMENT: Bush states that under his tax plan, no American would pay a third or more of their income in federal taxes.
TRUTH: He DOESN'T say that virtually no one pays that now.

STATEMENT: Bush accuses Gore of "loading up" Social Security with "IOUs for future generations."
TRUTH: Bush DOESN'T mention that this is how Social Security has worked since its foundation in 1935.

Gore

STATEMENT: "I have actually not questioned Bush's experience. I have questioned his proposals."
TRUTH: In an April 13 interview, Gore questions Bush's tax plan by saying, "raises the question, 'Does he have the experience to be president?'"

STATEMENT: Gore attacks Bush on his education plan that leaves children in failing schools for 3 years before giving parents vouchers to pay for private school.
TRUTH: Gore DOESN'T say that his own plan would leave a failing school open for 3 years, before closing it, then reopening after new leadership is installed

STATEMENT: Gore says his tax cut plan is available to every middle-class American.
TRUTH: Actually true, but only if they are involved in an activity targeted for tax breaks, such as college tuition or retirement savings.

STATEMENT: Gore says Bush's plan to tap Alaskan oil reserves would "destroy precious parts of America's environment."
TRUTH: Probably true eventually, but it is not an automatic result.

Hope you have fun arguing over these!!  

Hamlet69
All gave some. Some gave all.
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 11:32 am

For the record, Niether candidate gives a flying f**k about the lower classes. It's just a matter of saying what will get them the votes. I support Bush, but wether its him, or Gore who makes it to the white house, they will continue to do what benefits the people that got them into the office, and that sadly to say, is not the lower classes.
 
Guest

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Thu Oct 05, 2000 2:02 pm

Bill Clinton is the master debater--hands up and down.
 
Greeneyes53787
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 10:34 am

RE: CstarU

Fri Oct 06, 2000 12:40 am

This is a very lude offering.

I do not like this kind of talk.

Literally you said something not bad. But your hinting was of an idea not appropriate for this forum.
This is my opinion.

I am not a Clinton fan but I think he, being the President, deserves more respect than this.

GE
 
Ilyushin96M
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 3:15 am

Why I'm Voting For Nader

Fri Oct 06, 2000 1:40 am

I'm not voting for Ralph Nader in order NOT to vote for Bush or Gore. That would be a waste of a vote, and I wouldn't even bother voting if that were the case.

I think that Nader, unlike Bush and Gore, is more interested in people. He takes an interest in the "lower" classes, as KROC put it. And he's a stand against polluting the environment. Yeah, I do agree with socialised healthcare and education. So shoot me. Some of the best schools and universities in Europe are government-funded, and their education system seems to be quite a cut above what we have in the US. And healthcare here is ridiculous - any lowering of cost would be an improvement.

This article I read awhile ago somewhat struck me and made alot of sense. Check it out:

---------------

Here's why I'm voting for Nader
By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist, 10/3/2000

Ralph Nader certainly has the Crank Columnist vote sewn up.

The first major media crank to pin his colors to ''the people's superhero,'' as Green Party propaganda calls its presidential standard-bearer, was the Harper's editor, Lewis Lapham.

That cranky scribe, who also writes a front-of-the-magazine column, plumped for Nader in an argumentative cover story last month, assailing many of his (and Nader's) favorite targets. Among them: The New York Times, which has condemned Nader as a ''spoiler,'' and corporate lackeys Al Gore and George Bush, etc.

Next up, with a rose-scented, pro-Nader bouquet, was the New York Observer's quixotic (read: muddled) Nicholas von Hoffman, who pointed out that Nader has had about 10 times greater impact on the body politic than have Gore and Bush combined.

He's right, of course. When General Motors was assigning private investigators to dig up dirt on the nettlesome Nader, Al Gore was still sporting a St. Albans blazer, and George W. hadn't even been tapped for Skull and Bones.

I was quite interested in the Nader candidacy, and possibly even in voting for him. You have to admire a man who gives an interview to NBC's ''Today'' show, and who then walks across the street to criticize NBC's corporate parent, General Electric, for polluting the Hudson River.

But I knew one thing would turn me off immediately: actual contact with Nader and the Greens. My idea of a Green is the late Petra Kelly, the GI's daughter who mobilized West Germany - back when there was a West Germany - to within an inch of kicking US nuclear missiles out of central Europe. Aside from a shared disdain for Bush and Gore, I couldn't imagine any issues where the Greens and I could find common ground.

It would be too much to say that the Nader rally at the new Boston Garden - and Nader calls it the Garden, bless his soul - was a revelation, because I am past the stage of political revelation. I am, after all, the one who wrote, bitterly but accurately, that ''I don't believe that I will ever live in a country that elects Bill Bradley president.'' But it didn't turn me off to Nader, nor to his running mate, Winona LaDuke. Quite the opposite.

What's not to like? The Greens didn't allow Ticketmaster to sell their tickets. Great! Is there a more hated monopoly in America than Ticketmaster? I don't think so. MasterCard is suing the Nader campaign for an amusing parody of the company's treacly ''priceless'' ads. Here's Nader's: ''Grilled tenderloin for fund-raiser, $1,000 a plate; promises to special interest groups, over $10 billion; finding out the truth, priceless.''

Not hard to figure out whose side I'm on there. Nader said it was time to ''get the Boston Red Sox off of corporate welfare,'' and he even got quite a cheer when he condemned The New York Times's takeover of the Globe.

Yes, there's tons of silliness attached to the Nader candidacy. LaDuke, an engaging speaker who possesses the spectral beauty of the 46-year-old Joan Baez, kept nattering on about hemp. The Nader presidency, she promised, would use only recycled paper made from hemp, ''the crop of the future.''

Okaaaaaaaay. Am I uncomfortable voting for someone endorsed by Phil Donahue and Pearl Jam, who secretly wants to turn our country into Canada, or - good God! - Sweden?

Doubts? You bet I have doubts, to quote Thomas Merton when asked if he had second thoughts about becoming a Trappist monk.

But why reward political mendacity? How dare Al Gore casually abandon his one nominal ''principle'' - concern for the environment, and for wise energy policies - to suck up to the SUV-driving suburbanites? As for George Bush, what can you say? Nice fellow and all, but maybe he could be president of some other country, like ... Fredonia.

Who cares if Ralph Nader can't win the presidency? Voting in Massachusetts is an act of faith, not of civic commitment. We already live in a one-party state. Let's not make it a one-party country.

Alex Beam's e-dress is [email protected]




 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Fri Oct 06, 2000 1:46 am

This has been an interesting discussion, and I'm sorry to have jumped into it so far after the fact. Nevertheless, here's my $.02:

As for who really won, well in my own unbiased opinion, it was a draw; it seems to follow party lines (i.e. A Liberal will say that Gore won, and a Conservative will say that Bush won).
I think they both made some very strong points, but I also think both of them fumbled quite a bit. For what was almost certainly a meticulously rehearsed speech for both of them, I got the impression that it was very impromptu.
By the end of the debate, both of them seemed rather war weary. Therefore I cannot state with any air of finality that either one clearly came out on top.

Someone else in this thread made a comment about how Gore was made up to look like Reagan with the dress and mannerisms. I'm glad I'm not the only one that picked up on that. It's good that the Dems want to empathize with the voters by using someone who was highly successful. But having to rip off the GOP, and try and pass off their candidate as someone he is not is a very scary thought, and as far as I am concerened, is an action of a very desperate party indeed.

Did anyone else noticed that when they showed the split screen shots that the camera showing Bush was shaking like an epiliptic? How many here really think that was just a coincidence? What do you expect from the Media?

I watched and taped the debate in it's entirety. I also jotted down a few notes as it unfolded.

You knew the debate was in trouble from the moment the very first question was asked-which was of Gore regarding his questioning of Bush's ability to lead the country. As he did with nearly every question, he dodged it and started thanking his sponsors and guests for their support! What the hell does that have to do with the question at hand?

Why did Gore keep coming back to the environment? He seemed almost obsesively occupied with that and the "upper 1%". He just wouldn't let go of those. It really shouldn't come as a surpise. If Gore had his way, we'd all be living in canvas teepees and tooling around in a horse and buggy, and living like the Pennsylvania Amish folk.
That was a no brainer.

Bush really dropped the ball when the character issue came up. He really could've ran with it. I was disappointed at him for that.
Gore is clearly VERY uncomfortable with discussing character, and tried to steer us off that topic by saying it's irrelevant.
Excuse me, but no it's not. Character is a VERY relevant issue, and needs to be addressed. If you lied about your happenings at the Buddhist Temple (which I'm sorry to say I live only 6 miles from the one in question), and numerous other topics, and actually call your integrity into question, why shouldn't we hone in on that? If you lied then, you'll lie here on the platform tonight. And that means that if we vote you into office, how can I feel confident knowing that you will keep your promises, or at least make an honest attempt at doing so?

No, we need to address character. Like I said, Bush really let that issue slip by. It may be construed as a character assasination attempt, but given the clouds that hang over Gore from his daddys administration, these issues need to be addressed.

Gore made a passing comment that really perked my ears and eyes. "Universal Day Care".
Unless your (blind) loyalty to Gore is so set in concrete, how can you NOT see that that is a blatant attempt at Socializing America? Why do we need the Government to solve anything and everything? Besides, let's address the real motive here. It's not about giving a helping hand to working mothers. It's about indoctrinating the kids, and implementing the coddling from cradle to grave that only a Socialist/Communist country would bring.

I was amuzed, but not impressed with Bush's repeated use of "fuzzy math". While I do agree with him on that, his attempt at proving it was far from convincing and probably did more harm against him than good. If he only would've given Gore a direct answer on that, I probably wouldn't even be bringing this up.

The Media swaying of the candidates notwithstanding, I think this will be the closest election since Kennedy/Nixon of 1960. Whoever wins, it will be by a very narrow margin.
I will say this, that whoever wins will have a very profound effect on our country and culture. This is probably the most important election we've had in generations.
If Gore wins, say goodbye to your cars, Christianity, fireams, and a lot of the free enterprise system. We will be brought about 60% closer to a totalitarian and Socialist country if he wins.
And if he does win, he will be only a one term President-provided he doesn't decide to overturn the Constitution. (After all, he did make a statement about wanting to "grow" and "change" the Constitution. Why does it need to be changed? Why does it need to grow? Doesn't that give the Gov't more power? What was he really saying?) I say he will be a one term pres because when the next economic downturn comes (which will be during the next administration), he will have so much egg in his face because he has blathered endlessly about continuing this "prosperity" ad nauseam as though this economic cycle is stuck in a permanent crescendo.

If Bush wins, expect to finally see a backlash against Political Correctness and the absurdity associated with that. Enough is enough.
No wonder the immoral, gay, immigrant and welfare folks despise him.
It will mean no more special (I say SPECIAL...which is above and beyond EQUAL) rights or free handouts.

Finally, what was with those "unbiased" commentaries that followed? Jeez I mean if the press didn't show their colors, then I don't know what. Asking George Stephanopolis (sp?) who he though won is like asking Jesse Jerkson what he thinks of slavery. Yeah...real unbiased.
Get real folks....at least a few of us saw through that.
And I see a lot of that amongst some of you in this discussion.

I am wholeheartedly supporting Bush. Not because he is my first choice (that would go to Buchannan), but only because he is BY FAR the lesser of two evils.
Bush may be a bit dopey, and rough around the edges, but that's a helluva lot better than Gore taking away my car, my firearms, and telling me that if I disagree with someone, that I'm practicing hate, and can be imprisoned. Not to mention how whacked out and far out he seems to be with the environment and his claims to inventing the Internet.

And as a separate, but relevant issue, what is up with these polls? I'l start a new thread on them later, but why is there such an obsession with them? Does anyone else besides myself believe that the real reason behind them is to pander to the "winning spirit"?

What do I mean? If money is the number one force that drives our society, what is the second? Answer: conformity!
What do I mean?
Well....look at the clothes you wear. You buy what you do partly because you like them, but mostly because you don't want to look different than everyone else, you want to "keep up with the Joneses". Why do go see the "number one movie at the box office this weekend"? Because everyone else is and you want to know what the buzz is all about. Why do buy "Top 40" CD singles? Because Rick Dees (or whoever your local top 40 Disc Jerky is) told you it's the hottest thing. You want to go along with the "in" crowd.
You get the idea.
So how does this all tie in with the election?
Simple, if we are told by the press (who has far more power than anyone wants to believe, and whoever they want to win) that Candidate "X" is probably going to win, who are many of you going to vote for? Candidate "X". Why? Because you don't want to be on the "losing" side.
Didn't we have a discussion on this recently?
I mean, if peoples choices really were set in stone like so many of them claim, there would be no need for "Polls". We would know months ahead of time who the likely winner is going to be. But we don't. Why? Because too many people (and I'm not saying all of them) don't make up their mind until election day-when they are told by the press who to vote for.
 
ctbarnes
Posts: 3269
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 2:20 pm

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Fri Oct 06, 2000 1:49 am

I couldn't bring myself to actually watch the debate--Listening to those two speak on the same platform makes me want to out and do something unspeakable to small animals. From what I read afterwards, the debate appears to me to be a draw. Al could easily pass for Commander Data (but Data has more charisma), and Bush is doing well if he can string a coherent sentance together. The whole thing seemed an hour of endless sniping at each other, with Jim Lehrer barely able to keep control.

Wake me when it's over.

Charles
The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
 
Guest

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Fri Oct 06, 2000 2:01 am

I was in Vegas so I didn't see it, although one casino had the debate on a couple of TVs in the bar, with the volume off.  


G.E.

I happen to like Bill (my kind of man  ). I just wish he did it himself, rather than Monica. 
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: The Forum's Right Wing Extremist: Matt

Fri Oct 06, 2000 3:03 am

>>It's not about giving a helping hand to working mothers. It's about indoctrinating the kids, and implementing the coddling from cradle to grave that only a Socialist/Communist country would bring.<<


     

Just when I believe you couldn't say anything more retarded, you come up with a beauty like that.

Oh yes, I can see it now. The little kiddies being brainwashed with liberal dogma as they drink their milk and play with their toys. The letters on their blocks only spell "socialism." The teacher gives cookies to the only kid who know his/her ABC's, but then demands he/she share the cookies with all the other undeserving kids.

I'd love to pass your thoughts along to the working mothers in this country who desperately need daycare and see if they think the idea is all an evil liberal plot to indoctrinate their kids rather than a response to their needs. I'm sure they'd have a good laugh.

Look at this way Matt. Perhaps it's actually good economic policy. We have a major labor shortage in this country. By making it easier for women to work and earn enough money to make a living, we are helping companies fill positions, helping women stay off welfare, and contributing to the consumer base, which in turn helps business even more.

I don't feel strongly about this issue, just find it hilarious that you deem every proposal by a Democrat as some evil socialist plan. Please.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Fri Oct 06, 2000 3:10 am

Al Gore will be our next president, so just deal with! ! ! ! ! ! !

Why dont all you gun lovin', tobacco chewin', confederate flag waving, un-educated right-wing Bush supporting idiots go find another country to move to so America can proggress?

I am sick and tied of hearing so-called conservatives blaming the poor, women, people of color, immigrants, and gays for the nations problems! Most of these folks don't have much of a steak on Wall St., nor have a paid lobbyiest at every congressmens door. The biggest 'welfare queen' is the Pentagon!

So what if Al Gore had a fund-raiser at a Buddist Temple. What about all the fund-raising and aggressive lobbying by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the Pat Robertson folks.

I think all the right-wing ignorant folks should move to Texas and we can give Texas back to Mexico. Then they'll be happy because Mexico is a police state with no Miranda Rights, there is no government assistance for poor people to go to college. There is no affirmative Action, womens abortion rights, gun control, envoirnmental laws. There is plenty of cheap labor and huge gaps between rich and poor.
What move could a conservative republican ask for?

Vote for Al Gore so America can continue to grow!  
I think conservatives would love it down there.  

Bring back the Concorde
 
RealHigh
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2000 7:09 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Fri Oct 06, 2000 3:26 am

Bush kept accusing Gore of using Fuzzy Math. Does that come before or after Advance Math?
I went up the triginometry in college, I must have missed Fuzzy Math.
I would think with all the cocaine George Bush Jr. snorted, everythink would seem kind of fuzzy!
Wouldn't you think?
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

TWFirst And Superfly

Fri Oct 06, 2000 3:34 am

You said:

"Oh yes, I can see it now. The little kiddies being brainwashed with liberal dogma as they drink their milk and play with their toys. The letters on their blocks only spell "socialism." The teacher gives cookies to the only kid who know his/her ABC's, but then demands he/she share the cookies with all the other undeserving kids.

I'd love to pass your thoughts along to the working mothers in this country who desperately need daycare and see if they think the idea is all an evil liberal plot to indoctrinate their kids rather than a response to their needs"

Amazing.....that's about it for better or worse. Except it won't be quite that subtle. More like switching reading time from Dr Seuss to "Politically Correct bedtime stories".

Sure you see it as funny, but hey that's your opinion.

As for the working mothers and their problems...well that's exactly what they are:
THEIR PROBLEMS!!!!!!!!!

Don't come looking to me to support them.
I work my ass off every day to support myself. If I can do it, you can too. If someone else can't, they need to deal with it. I don't believe in safety nets and as a taxpayer, I think I should have some say in where my money goes.

Superfly:
You stated:
"I think all the right-wing ignorant folks should move to Texas and we can give Texas back to Mexico. Then they'll be happy because Mexico is a police state with no Miranda Rights, there is no government assistance for poor people to go to college. There is no affirmative Action, womens abortion rights, gun control, envoirnmental laws. There is plenty of cheap labor and huge gaps between rich and poor.
What move could a conservative republican ask for"

That's actually not a bad idea. Can I give you credit for that idea of brilliance?

You are accusing us of passing blame to everyone else, yet the very things you are complaining about are things you can do something about:

Affirmative Action:
Why do you need it unless you are admitting that you can't succeed on merit alone?

Abortion rights and gun control: These are issues that can occupy an entire thread, and I will start them separately.

As for economic issues:
That's the beauty of capitalism: It rewards the hard (and smart) workers, and punishes the lazy and non productive. If you are unhappy with your socioeconomic position, get off your lazy cry baby motherfucking ass and do something about it. Develop a better work ethic. Show up on time. Take notes when you are being taught. Get a decent haircut. Make a one time investment in some good, office acceptable attire. Hey if I walked in looking like a "Cholo" or "Gangsta", no one would hire me either. For that, I'm the evil one? Hey, like it or not, if someone doesn't want to hire you because of the way you look, again, that's YOUR problem. That person has the job and the power. You don't. Why do we have to legislate that right away? Why should I have to jeoardize MY business because YOU want to show up late and dress like a slob? If you want to work, you better make sure you fit the bill. If you want to look like that, that's your right. After all it is a free country, but when you can't get a (decent) job because no one wants to hire you, you have no one but yourself to blame. And if you want to look like that, start your own business that caters to that community. The Japanese and Koreans do it and do it very well. Why should the Latinos and Blacks be any different? Like I said some time ago, if everywhere you go, people have a problem with you, maybe it's YOU that has the problem. Not everyone else. Don't expect them to change for you because it's simply not going to happen. Go to school. Find an entry level job that has growth potential, and work your way up. Do SOMETHING. Why are you blaming me for your wealth (or lack thereof?)
Why do you resent the well-to-do so much?

WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE TO DO FIX IT ALL?
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Matt

Fri Oct 06, 2000 3:41 am

Matt: If you don't want your taxpayer money to support universal daycare, that's one thing. I completely understand that. But to then say the idea is merely a liberal plot to "indoctrinate" kids makes you sound like a lunatic.

An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Fri Oct 06, 2000 4:02 am

RE: Matt D
What in the hell are you talking about?
Are you saying that all blacks are complaining gangsters and Latinos are lazy cholos?

What government program requires employers to hire gangsters and cholos?
Are you saying I am lazy?
Everyday I go to work I am doing something for the betterment of our society. I am a transportation consultant and I had to work hard in school and put in many long hours to get to the level I am at.
I have seen favoratism and promotions of lesser qualified people over me in the pass. They were not people of color by the way.

We do agree on somethings like giving up Texas and freedom to have you hair long. The problem is, police pick on these people for just driving in the wrong neighborhood or walking down the street! Conservatives wants to criminalize everything thats different.
I think conservatives harbour Stalinist ideals.

Bring back the Concorde
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

TWFirst

Fri Oct 06, 2000 4:17 am

Ok...maybe I did come across sounding a bit on the fringe. Maybe that's the case. Maybe I could be completely wrong. But given their past records and their obsession with children, it's hard for that question not to be in the back of your mind.

Superfly:
Quite the contrary. There are Latinos and Blacks out there that are very hard workers and should be a model for everyone else.
It's the ones that do nothing and bitch and moan about it like it's my fault that I have a problem with.

I also agree with you that in many areas, Police brutality has gotten way out of hand and something needs to be done about it. Just look at our fine LAPD as an example. I'm embarrassed to say I live in LA country because of them.
But at the same time, you as an individual needs to use a little common sense. If you know that the cops are going to harass you if you go into a gang infested area, maybe you should think twice about looking like a gang banger when going there.
Or maybe, if its that bad, maybe you should avoid that area altogether and don't go there if you have to.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

Fri Oct 06, 2000 4:38 am

RE: Matt D
I used to live in LA and moved to San Francisco because of the LAPD. I lived in Pasadena and Northridge. Northridge is under LAPD rule and I was pulled over many times becuase I drove an old 1970s Lincoln and I had long hair. I was a hard working student earning low pay. Using your logic, I should've bought a $45,000 SUV to fit in with all the other upper-class sub-urbanites to avoid being pulled over going to work or school!
I dont want to get to personal but I think you need to seek counseling.
I am glad you can see there are hard working people of color but you sound like a bigot. I just hope your not a police officer or a school teacher.

I got to get back to work, other wise Masters gonna fire me!
Bring back the Concorde
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5748
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Matt

Fri Oct 06, 2000 5:05 am

>>Ok...maybe I did come across sounding a bit on the fringe. Maybe that's the case.<<


No "maybes" about it dude. By ANY measure, support of Buchanan and Buchananite ideas (if that's where you're getting some of this "conspiracy" stuff) is NOT mainstream. Not even close to mainstream. These kinds of ideas abut the very right end of the spectrum.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: StarAC17, tommy1808 and 105 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos