PDA

View Full Version : George Bush is a parrot


Infiniti2001
Oct 1st, 2004, 02:45 AM
Pathetic , pathetic :tape: Then again he is a well trained parrot-- he is repeating everything he was taught :lol:

CondiLicious
Oct 1st, 2004, 03:09 AM
Repeat after me:

"You can NOT be Commander in Chief if you KEEP changing positions"

again!

"You can NOT be Commander in Chief if you KEEP changing postions"

once more with feeling!

"You can NOT be Commander in Chief if you KEEP CHANGING POSITIONS!"

Infiniti2001
Oct 1st, 2004, 03:22 AM
I'm actually embarrassed for that man . Good Lord!!!!

esquímaux
Oct 1st, 2004, 03:25 AM
:o:o:o

CondiLicious
Oct 1st, 2004, 03:28 AM
I'm actually embarrassed for that man . Good Lord!!!!
Make sure you don't change positions on that! Be steadfast!

Infiniti2001
Oct 1st, 2004, 03:30 AM
Make sure you don't change positions on that! Be steadfast!


:haha: never!! :p

CondiLicious
Oct 1st, 2004, 03:31 AM
:lol: :lol: and he said "steadfast" just as I posted that.

I am so gonna get a drinking game going for the next debate!

Andrew.
Oct 1st, 2004, 03:35 AM
I hate to admit this, but he won that debate...

wta_zuperfann
Oct 1st, 2004, 03:37 AM
Bush = :devil:



Impeach Bush & Cheney for the following crimes =

1) prorogue {usurpation} of the White House

2) subvention {bribery} of "allies"

3) Seditious Conspiracy in violation of 18 USC 2384

4) violation of Nuremburg Doctrine

5) perjury before the Congress {Powell's speeches}

6) perjury before the UN Security Council

7) violation of UN Treaty

8) unlawful detention of "suspects" in Guantanamo

9) unlawful detention of "suspects" in Abu Ghraib

10) death of 1045 American soldiers under illegal circumstances

11) injuries to over 7000 American soldiers under illegal circumstances

12) deaths of allied soldiers

13) injuries to allied soldiers

14) theft of over $ 200 billion from the US Treasury under false pretenses

CondiLicious
Oct 1st, 2004, 03:39 AM
I hate to admit this, but he won that debate...
Bush? I thought he came across as a mumbling idiot... but then I'm not very objective when it comes to that man.

Don't think Kerry did as well as he probably wanted to though :(

jbone_0307
Oct 1st, 2004, 03:44 AM
Anybody who votes for Bush after today's events is just plain dumb. All he says is "protect the american people" and terrorism. And his response to Kerrys comment about being cooperative with other countries, and bush said why should we. Well if we want to catch Osama or do whatever, then you may, or we could just go and bomb them.

Infiniti2001
Oct 1st, 2004, 03:52 AM
If I were Bush , I'd drop out of the next debate :o

tenn_ace
Oct 1st, 2004, 03:54 AM
but guess what? the polls will show that he won the debates :mad: unfortunately :sad:

CondiLicious
Oct 1st, 2004, 04:01 AM
I was impressed with what Kerry had to say when he was on about how WMDs are getting into Iraq every day and blowing people up. He sounded very convincing though that whole portion of the debate... and Bush's response was very weak and he switched quickly to his "parrot" mode :lol:

CoryAnnAvants#1
Oct 1st, 2004, 04:07 AM
Kerry pretty much swiped away almost everything Bush threw at him, while Bush didn't even close to doing the same thing.

And as far as the whole changing positions thing? Kerry's actual goals haven't changed, it's how he goes about getting them. When something doesn't work, YOU CHANGE IT UP. It's called PRAGMATISM. Why is that concept so hard?

And :tape: :lol: at that little schpiel Bush gave on Missy from North Carolina or whoever the fuck it was..."we talked, we laughed, we prayed..." That was a case of him realizing he was getting his ass kicked, so he just pulled out the sympathy card.

Volcana
Oct 1st, 2004, 04:08 AM
Repeat after me:

"You can NOT be Commander in Chief if you KEEP changing positions"

again!

"You can NOT be Commander in Chief if you KEEP changing postions"

once more with feeling!

"You can NOT be Commander in Chief if you KEEP CHANGING POSITIONS!"
You can NOT be Commander in Chief if you oppose a 9/11 commission and then support it.
You can NOT be Commander in Chief if you oppose a Department of Homeland Security and then support it.
You can NOT be Commander in Chief if you cliam American trrops will only be sent to war with adequate equipment, and then send them without body armor.

Oh wait. Yes you can.:)

"But I'm resolute, and I'm not sending a mixed message"

gweeny
Oct 1st, 2004, 04:11 AM
I can't understand the "flip-flop" argument. If new and better information comes into light, should you stupidly stay the course. Of course not. It is similar to chastizing a former racist for "flip-floping" and changing his/her flawed ideals.

George Bush is also a "flip-flopper". Wasn't George W. Bush an alcoholic and didn't he find the lord. He flip-flopped from a life of sin to a life of finding Christianity. My God, if there is a better way to solve a problem, and you were wrong before, please flip-flop and make the world better.

Republicans have used this "flip-flop" excuse every single time. That is a bullshit argument. Why not have something substantial to say.

I hope that my flip-flopper candidate Kerry wins this election.

CondiLicious
Oct 1st, 2004, 04:14 AM
And as far as the whole changing positions thing? Kerry's actual goals haven't changed, it's how he goes about getting them. When something doesn't work, YOU CHANGE IT UP. It's called PRAGMATISM. Why is that concept so hard?
http://www.biohabit.org/mt/archives/Bizarro.gif

:)

Bacardi
Oct 1st, 2004, 04:25 AM
I thought Georgie Porgie got his ass kicked. He never exactly answered any questions directly, he'd instead "flip flop" the question into another issue or get side tracked into some long drawn out bull shit excuse.

I really hope that Smirking Moron gets a ticket back to Texas.

Infiniti2001
Oct 1st, 2004, 04:25 AM
Duhbya showed that he is way too much of a simple-minded destructive bully to be president for another term. Did you hear how he dismissed the idea of America working internationally?? What a babbling fool -- and those faces he made :o He reminded me of a lil kid performing for an audience.

Infiniti2001
Oct 1st, 2004, 04:31 AM
I can't understand the "flip-flop" argument. If new and better information comes into light, should you stupidly stay the course. Of course not. It is similar to chastizing a former racist for "flip-floping" and changing his/her flawed ideals.

George Bush is also a "flip-flopper". Wasn't George W. Bush an alcoholic and didn't he find the lord. He flip-flopped from a life of sin to a life of finding Christianity. My God, if there is a better way to solve a problem, and you were wrong before, please flip-flop and make the world better.

Republicans have used this "flip-flop" excuse every single time. That is a bullshit argument. Why not have something substantial to say.

I hope that my flip-flopper candidate Kerry wins this election.

Exactly!! I thought Kerry was very consistent, concise , and precise. The republicans need a new line UGH :fiery:

Bamafan717
Oct 1st, 2004, 04:33 AM
John Kerry:

I am a veteran
I am a veteran
I am a veteran

Oh wait, he did change it up once:

I am a veteran that served in Vietnam.

treufreund
Oct 1st, 2004, 04:37 AM
omg BUSH IS A TOTAL IDIOT and HIS LIES ABOUT KERRY ARE EXPOSED!!!!!!!

JLDementieva
Oct 1st, 2004, 04:54 AM
i thought they were both ridiculous tonight!! I hope the next one is better!

Wigglytuff
Oct 1st, 2004, 05:54 AM
I hate to admit this, but he won that debate...
depends

gallap shows kerry leading by a wide margin

bush did ignore points like halliburton that he knew he was 100% wrong on, said alot of things that made no sense, and stumbled to find the rite words alot.

but then again he did open with a direct mention of 9/11 and he did hit that podium mighty hard. so its a toss up.

Wigglytuff
Oct 1st, 2004, 06:06 AM
John Kerry:

I am a veteran
I am a veteran
I am a veteran

Oh wait, he did change it up once:

I am a veteran that served in Vietnam.

i dont know if you got the briefing, but he is a veteran.
:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

on a completely unrelated note, did anyone notice how GWBs first words in the debate were "on 9.11...."

Volcana
Oct 1st, 2004, 07:39 AM
John Kerry:

I am a veteran
I am a veteran
I am a veteran

Oh wait, he did change it up once:

I am a veteran that served in Vietnam.He did, however, stop himself from saying "I have three purple hearts.":)

(What Kerry SHOULD have said, when Bush went on about how tough it was to send men off in combat, was, 'You don't know what war is like.')

Jeleno Benesovo
Oct 1st, 2004, 07:39 AM
George W Bush is not only a parrot, he's a retarded one :retard:

CooCooCachoo
Oct 1st, 2004, 09:02 AM
Argh I wish I had seen some of it.. I was asleep :yawn: Bad time for me.

Hagar
Oct 1st, 2004, 09:59 AM
I saw a small part. I thought Kerry's words were well thought-out, his arguments were well built up. Unfortunately the man lacks the talent to come up with good catchy one-liners. He's a thinker and not a natural talker. George W. so often says things which are an open invitation to fire a one-liner back which makes him speechless. Kerry is not ad rem enough. That as such would not make him a bad president; it's just that it's a quality he will need if he wants to beat George W. in these elections.

Brian Stewart
Oct 1st, 2004, 10:24 AM
Dubya is the Milli Vanilli of politics. He's the front man who lip syncs the lyrics of Dick Cheney and Co. That's why he was unable to go into any details beyond what he was briefed on. They aren't his policies and plans.

Kerry got in a pretty good zinger with the Halliburton reference, but his best shot was when he turned around the long-standing Republican morphing of the Iraq war into the greater "War on Terror". After Bush said his bit about how "we were attacked", etc., Kerry corrected him by stating Bin Laden attacked us, and not Hussein. And Bush's snippy comeback on the order of "I know it was Bin Laden who attacked us..." just made him look childish. Kerry had basically put the Republicans on the spot for the way they had misled the general public by allowing them to think there was a direct connecion between Iraq and Al Qaieda. He ably took control of the discussion, without repeating Gore's mistake of coming off as smarmy or condescending. ("sigh")

Interesting how so many "post game" pundits were trying to come up with things for the Republicans to use in their next round of ads. Doesn't anyone want to help the Democrats? (I guess not, if you're making a 7-figure salary.) Perhaps Kerry's ads could attack Bush further on Iraq. It was because of "weapons of mass destruction". It was because of the potential to develop nukes. It was because of possible ties to Al Qaieda. It was to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. It was to make America safer. It was to bring democracy to the region. It was part of the overall war on terror. It was "isn't the world a better place without Saddam in power?" Someone's certainly taken a lot of different positions on Iraq, and it wasn't Kerry.

What has to concern the Bush team is that this was his debate, on his issue. It was basically his "home game". And he lost, badly. Ironically, one of the things that hurt him this time helped him before; the split screen. Gore's expressions while Bush was talking made him look smug. Bush's expressions while Kerry was talking made him look unsteady, unsure, and defensive.

It will be interesting to see how things play out in the polls. If Kerry gets any kind of bounce, especially in the battleground states (many of which are within the margin of error), it could mark a momentum shift. Likewise, the next debate should be interesting. As should the VP debate. Cheney will be better able to answer questions on policy than Bush was, but he doesn't have the Prez's charisma. It's hard to say where that will go.

The most interesting comment was from Reagan's kid on MSNBC, who basically said that Bush had about 30 minutes of material for a 90-minute debate. Hence the repetitiveness.

Hagar
Oct 1st, 2004, 10:46 AM
I just wish that Kerry could really kill Bush in one of these debates by coming up with short simplistic answers who expose how dumb Bush's statements are. But Kerry is too polite for that, I think.

BlackMoriah
Oct 1st, 2004, 12:23 PM
My favorite part of this debate was when Kerry said Bush only had a handful of allies namely Great Britain, Australia and co. and Bush came up with the reply: "But you forgot Poland." :haha: :haha: :haha: That was so funny. Like what difference do poland make.

Rocketta
Oct 1st, 2004, 02:46 PM
Focus Group Gives Slight Edge to Kerry

1 hour, 54 minutes ago
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/my/addtomyyahoo3.gif (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?id=6400&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story%26ncid=578%26e=3%26u=/nm/20041001/pl_nm/campaign_voters_dc) Politics - Reuters (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?id=6400&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story%26ncid=578%26e=3%26u=/nm/20041001/pl_nm/campaign_voters_dc)



By Alan Elsner

MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - A group of citizens in the swing state of New Hampshire, including Democrats, Republicans and one undecided voter, gave a slight edge to Democrat John Kerry (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22John%0AKerry%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=John%20Kerry)) in Thursday's first presidential debate.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20041001/amdf713768.jpg (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041001/photos_ts/mdf713768)
Reuters Photo (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041001/photos_ts/mdf713768)
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20041001/thumb.sge.olp48.011004132702.photo03.default-369x276.jpg (javascript: rs()
AFP (javascript: rs() http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/auctions/cam.gifSlideshow: Presidential Debate (javascript: rs()

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/th/election04_s2.jpg (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/elec/promo/story/export_top/*http://news.yahoo.com/elections)
Latest Headlines: ·Bush, Kerry resume campaign trail after gruelling TV debate (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/elec/promo/story/export_stories/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041001/ts_alt_afp/us_vote&cid=1506&ncid=2043)
AFP - 18 minutes ago
·Post-Debate Polls Favor Kerry (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/elec/promo/story/export_stories/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041001/ap_on_el_pr/debate_rdp&cid=694&ncid=2043)
AP - 41 minutes ago
·World Tunes in for U.S. Debate (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/elec/promo/story/export_stories/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041001/ap_on_el_pr/debate_world_view&cid=694&ncid=2043)
AP - 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
All Election Coverage (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/elec/promo/story/promo_bottom/*http://news.yahoo.com/elections)



Before the debate began, three of the seven voters who gathered at Saint Anselm College, a small Catholic university near Manchester, said they were leaning toward Kerry, but without any great enthusiasm. The three who said they supported President Bush (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22President%20Bush%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=President%20Bush)) were all passionately behind him.



After the debate, all three Kerry supporters said they were much more encouraged and heartened by the Massachusetts senator's performance. The Bush supporters remained solidly committed to the president.



Adam Schibley, a politics student at the college and the group's sole undecided voter, said he was now leaning strongly toward Kerry.



"Kerry answered a few questions I had that were open-ended before the debate started," he said. "Bush struggled more to verbalize his beliefs while Kerry found it easy to put into words exactly what he felt."



Polls show the presidential race in New Hampshire is extremely close. Bush was scheduled to visit Manchester on Friday while Kerry was scheduled to arrive in the state early next week.



Dentist Lawrence Puccini, a Bush supporter, said that viewed purely as a debating contest, Kerry was the winner.



"Bush had a sour look to him. Kerry showed himself a real polished debater. He kept attacking but he didn't really convince me about what he would do differently. But in terms of the debate, he cleaned Bush's clock," he said.



The New Hampshire voters agreed that both candidates had strong moments in the debate.



"Bush seemed most presidential when he rejected Kerry's approach to bilateral talks with North Korea (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22North%20Korea%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=North%20Korea))," said Marc Cronin, the dean of first-year students at Saint Anselm College. "But I was pleased by Kerry's performance. He made a reasonable case for his position and he was not as scripted as Bush, although both were a bit scripted at times."



SOLID POINT



Others in the group said Kerry scored a solid point when he highlighted the decline in U.S. international credibility by recalling how during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 French President Charles De Gaulle had accepted the word of the president of the United States without the need to see proof.



Henry Wenta, a distributor for a major beer company, was totally committed to Bush before the debate began and remained so after it was over. But he said there was no clear winner to the encounter.



"John Kerry is cold, he was yelling all the time. Bush is friendly and speaking to us, not to Jim (moderator Jim Lehrer). Bush -- I believe him, I believe everything he says. He still has my vote," he said.



Before the debate began, Meg Cronin, an English professor at the college, said she wished the Democrats had nominated someone else for president.



She was pleased that neither candidate had indulged in personal attacks and said Bush had made it clear that he had a lot of real world experience as president. Overall however, she finished the evening a stronger Kerry supporter than before.



"Kerry did a good job in explaining the so-called inconsistencies in his record. I feel better about supporting him now," she said.







Student Candace Cunha, another lukewarm Kerry supporter before the debate, said Bush seemed nonplused several times.

"I came in thinking I don't trust Kerry and I didn't know what he was planning to do. But I don't think Bush was sure of himself. He was like a deer caught in the headlights so many times," she said.

She also strongly endorsed Kerry's point that there was a difference between supporting U.S. troops and supporting the war in Iraq (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Iraq%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=Iraq)).

"Just because I don't support the war in Iraq doesn't mean I don't support my friend who is serving in Fallujah," she said.

Susan Roberge said she had supported Bush in 2000 and would be proud to vote for him again. She said she felt a very strong emotional connection to him, confirmed by watching the debate.

"I really felt Bush made eye contact with his audience. Kerry was looking askance," she said. "He didn't stand up and show that he had not been inconsistent on Iraq."

spartanfan
Oct 1st, 2004, 03:14 PM
I find it amazing that Bush supporters are such blind followers no matter what words come out of his mouth. IMO Bush had a very difficult time articulating his points. Most of his responses consisted of mere catch phrases and slogans. And the world is alot more complicated that that George Jr.

Volcana
Oct 1st, 2004, 03:45 PM
I find it amazing that Bush supporters are such blind followers no matter what words come out of his mouth. IMO Bush had a very difficult time articulating his points. Most of his responses consisted of mere catch phrases and slogans. And the world is a lot more complicated that that George Jr.Bush's followers don't back him because he's articulate. It's more subtle, and more emotional than that.

a) They flat-out LIKE the guy. That means a lot. It helped Clinton get elected twice.

b) Bush uses a biblical references and quotes without attribute. Devout Christian catch them. The rest of us don't. I have my Mom to point them out to me, and now I'm getting better at catching them. One of the last three seconds in Bush's closing statement was a biblical quote. He does use a slightly different inflection when saying them, but if you don't know to look for them, they're easy to miss.

c) "We're good; they're evil", will always play better with certain parts of the population than "the world is a complex place". And absolutely, there are many, MANY Americans who never, EVER want to hear "people hate us because of how WE'VE treated THEM".

Bush offers a simple 'good vs evil' worldview.

d) Some smart people make YOU feel smart. Some stupid people make you feel smart. Some smart people make you feel stupid. Bill Clinton was VERY good at explaining complex things in ways ordinary people understood. After he was done talking, a person feels smart. 'Oh I get it. It's not that complicated.'

Kerry, regrettably, lacks that ability. Too often after he speaks, I hear people say 'I ddn't understand that'.

WHen Bush gets done, people often say 'HE doesn't understand that.' At first, Bush looks bad by comparison. But look at the emotional interaction. Nobody FEELS stupid when they get done hearing Bush talk. In that way, he's like Clinton. His supporters FEEL good after hearing him. With Kerry, you either FEEL bad, because you didn't understand him. Or you FEEL bad, because you realize just how much damage Bush has done, and how much it's going to cost us, AND our children, AND our grand-children to correct all that damage.

Even Kerry's stock line 'Help is on the way', reminds people that we NEED help.

"Feel good" vs "Feel bad" - Feel good usually wins.

GBFH
Oct 1st, 2004, 04:01 PM
you forgot one, volcana...

kerry supporters (oh, sorry, i meant bush-haters) are so zealous and irritating that some of us would never vote for the guy even if we agree with his policies.

Infiniti2001
Oct 1st, 2004, 04:11 PM
Dubya is the Milli Vanilli of politics. He's the front man who lip syncs the lyrics of Dick Cheney and Co. That's why he was unable to go into any details beyond what he was briefed on. They aren't his policies and plans.

Kerry got in a pretty good zinger with the Halliburton reference, but his best shot was when he turned around the long-standing Republican morphing of the Iraq war into the greater "War on Terror". After Bush said his bit about how "we were attacked", etc., Kerry corrected him by stating Bin Laden attacked us, and not Hussein. And Bush's snippy comeback on the order of "I know it was Bin Laden who attacked us..." just made him look childish. Kerry had basically put the Republicans on the spot for the way they had misled the general public by allowing them to think there was a direct connecion between Iraq and Al Qaieda. He ably took control of the discussion, without repeating Gore's mistake of coming off as smarmy or condescending. ("sigh")

Interesting how so many "post game" pundits were trying to come up with things for the Republicans to use in their next round of ads. Doesn't anyone want to help the Democrats? (I guess not, if you're making a 7-figure salary.) Perhaps Kerry's ads could attack Bush further on Iraq. It was because of "weapons of mass destruction". It was because of the potential to develop nukes. It was because of possible ties to Al Qaieda. It was to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. It was to make America safer. It was to bring democracy to the region. It was part of the overall war on terror. It was "isn't the world a better place without Saddam in power?" Someone's certainly taken a lot of different positions on Iraq, and it wasn't Kerry.

What has to concern the Bush team is that this was his debate, on his issue. It was basically his "home game". And he lost, badly. Ironically, one of the things that hurt him this time helped him before; the split screen. Gore's expressions while Bush was talking made him look smug. Bush's expressions while Kerry was talking made him look unsteady, unsure, and defensive.

It will be interesting to see how things play out in the polls. If Kerry gets any kind of bounce, especially in the battleground states (many of which are within the margin of error), it could mark a momentum shift. Likewise, the next debate should be interesting. As should the VP debate. Cheney will be better able to answer questions on policy than Bush was, but he doesn't have the Prez's charisma. It's hard to say where that will go.

The most interesting comment was from Reagan's kid on MSNBC, who basically said that Bush had about 30 minutes of material for a 90-minute debate. Hence the repetitiveness.


:worship: :worship: Unfortunately for the republicans, there's no way they can spin this one :lol: Dubya selfdestructed his way out of a second term as far as I am concerned . There's absoluely no word to describe how awful he was :rolleyes: :tape:

Circe
Oct 1st, 2004, 04:24 PM
Anybody who votes for Bush after today's events is just plain dumb. All he says is "protect the american people" and terrorism. And his response to Kerrys comment about being cooperative with other countries, and bush said why should we. Well if we want to catch Osama or do whatever, then you may, or we could just go and bomb them.

if you ask me, i'd say anyone who voted for Bush must be plain dumb anyway. or at least frightened into being dumb by the brilliant use of government machinery by the repubs. but in any case there really isnt a shortage of dumb people in the world. putting it another way, its quite possible i'm dumb and hopelessly wrong. i doubt it but its possible.

the point is, today's debate might not make as much difference as we'd like to think. yes, kerry had the better of it. its not difficult to get the better of a debate when your opponent has three things to say and repeats them ad infinitum .

but how many people really watched the debate and how many were really "undecideds"? the vast majority of people is going to get their perspective on the debate from the spin the networks put on it. and we all know what spin the disgustingly biased reporters at Fox News will put on it.

and there's two debates left to go. there's the veep's debate. i know edwards is quite the charmer but unlike Bill Clinton ( :hearts: ) he lacks the holistic multi-dimensional character that would be required to really put it across someone like Cheney, who may be dry and almost scarily neocon, but knows how to make a point.

besides Bush might make some good points on the economy, you never know. the democrats have indulged in some protectionist rhetoric that does not really make good economic sense.

wait and watch. i still think bush is unbeatable.

Helen Lawson
Oct 1st, 2004, 05:10 PM
I wish people would stop bumping this thread up. Jess and I had a parrot and then when we got divorced, after a long, nasty court battle, I got sole custody of the twins, but the judge split the baby so to speak and Jess got the parrot (and a lot of MY money, too). It broke my heart (the parrot). It was a really nice bird and talked a lot. It lavished praise on me, too, I mean, what more could you ask from a pet? Anyway, Floyd and I got a parrot later, but it liked Floyd better than me so I gave it to one of the twins' college roommates. So, I get sad when I see someone mention a parrot. That damn Jess!

Helen Lawson
Oct 1st, 2004, 05:16 PM
Here's the only picture I have left of my beloved parrot. We named him Wally, after Wallace Beery because the parrot had a weight problem. After I found out he'd raped Gloria Swanson, I regretted naming him that, but once you've named a pet, you can't go back.

http://ellensplace.net/parrot.jpg

Sonja
Oct 1st, 2004, 06:41 PM
George *whines* its hard work... To me he looked like a petulant child whose only tatctic was to keep repeating the same thing and trying to make us believe because he says it louder and louder each time...

I thought Kerry came across well and performed better than I expected. He was strong and attacked, yet exuded positivity. But then again, my vote was already decided before this debate. Kerry's performance was just a bit of icing on the cake. I hope this debate (and the upcoming ones) will give the Kerry/Edwards campaign the boost it badly needs.

Infiniti2001
Oct 1st, 2004, 06:46 PM
George *whines* its hard work... To me he looked like a petulant child whose only tatctic was to keep repeating the same thing and trying to make us believe because he says it louder and louder each time...

I thought Kerry came across well and performed better than I expected. He was strong and attacked, yet exuded positivity. But then again, my vote was already decided before this debate. Kerry's performance was just a bit of icing on the cake. I hope this debate (and the upcoming ones) will give the Kerry/Edwards campaign it badly needs.

Yep , I love this from political blog:

Could the contrast be more complete? A few overall impressions:

Kerry fit the content-equivalent of "War and Peace" into the framework of a
90 minute debate. As for his individual responses, how 90 seconds of time could
hold as much knowledge as Kerry poured into them amazes. He gets very high
marks for substance. Tearing jr. a new one was the proverbial icing on the cake.

Jr. on the other hand, mouthed the same tired platitudes and meandering
rhetoric he's used to misinform the public since 9-11. Done, of course, exuding the
same trademark vacuous-bewildered expression we've grown to expect and
despise. At times he seemed waiting for answers to fall from the sky (was god taking
the evening off?) that never came.

The lights were definitely off in Smirk's eyes, the vacancy sign on and
flapping in the breeze. More than twice a tumbleweed appeared to cross the lonely
space between his ears clear for all to see.

Sonja
Oct 1st, 2004, 06:49 PM
The lights were definitely off in Smirk's eyes, the vacancy sign on and
flapping in the breeze. More than twice a tumbleweed appeared to cross the lonely space between his ears clear for all to see.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

cynicole
Oct 1st, 2004, 07:20 PM
The title of this thread is an insult to parrots.

Helen Lawson
Oct 1st, 2004, 07:23 PM
The title of this thread is an insult to parrots.
The parrot I owned with Floyd was dumb as dirt.

flyingmachine
Oct 1st, 2004, 07:26 PM
Well it sounds like Kerry done pretty well on that. :yeah:
However we have to wait and see what happens for the next two debates.

cynicole
Oct 1st, 2004, 07:30 PM
Well it sounds like Kerry done pretty well on that. :yeah:
However we have to wait and see what happens for the next two debates. Likely Kerry will win the next two debates. Before he was a senator he was regularly on television participating in debates and roundtable discussions.

That and when he ran for the senate against former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld (who was pretty darn good himself at all these political games) he practically won all of those debates as well.

I heard something this morning that the debate last night only changed the minds of 1% of the polled undecided voters.

luvmytennis
Oct 1st, 2004, 07:33 PM
I think Bush should have called for a pinch-hitter next time...

Hulet
Oct 1st, 2004, 08:02 PM
Umm...Is it only me who thought Kerry didn't do so well? Actually, I thought Bush did better but that's because I didn't expect him to articulate anything (this might be the fourth or fifth time I saw him speaking in all his term and never in a debate situation). IMO, Bush was more articlulate than I thought he would be, or rather, he got his simple points across pretty clearly - be it "it's a hard work", "you must be decisive", ....

Kerry, on the other hand, didn't take his opportunities to attack Bush's position and there were so many opportunities. I don't know if that is because of the stupid debate format. He should have asked those 30 second rebuttal periods constantly to hammer at some of the ridiculous things Bush was saying like:
-He attacked Iraq because Sadam wasn't disarming. If there is no WMD, does it not then mean he was disarmed? :confused:
-His claim about the number of Iraqi's trained as security personnel.
-His attempt to link Iraq and the war on terror. Actually, on this one, Kerry countered him very well.
-About his refusal to join the International War Crimes tribunal (:lol: he can't even say it properly: "I won't let us join a 'criminal court'")
-His claim that a bilateral talk would disrupt multilateral talks with North Korea

The only good point Kerry has was about the nuclear test ban treaty which Bush is planning to abandon. I think he said that, if you can't obey international treaties, you can't expect others to do so. He was very forceful and convincing on that. He should have been the same in all those points.

Btw, are Israelis allowed to vote in U.S. election? What's up with both candidates pledging to protect the "security of Israel"?

Helen Lawson
Oct 1st, 2004, 08:36 PM
Umm...Is it only me who thought Kerry didn't do so well? Actually, I thought Bush did better but that's because I didn't expect him to articulate anything (this might be the fourth or fifth time I saw him speaking in all his term and never in a debate situation). IMO, Bush was more articlulate than I thought he would be, or rather, he got his simple points across pretty clearly - be it "it's a hard work", "you must be decisive", ....

Kerry, on the other hand, didn't take his opportunities to attack Bush's position and there were so many opportunities. I don't know if that is because of the stupid debate format. He should have asked those 30 second rebuttal periods constantly to hammer at some of the ridiculous things Bush was saying like:
-He attacked Iraq because Sadam wasn't disarming. If there is no WMD, does it not then mean he was disarmed? :confused:
-His claim about the number of Iraqi's trained as security personnel.
-His attempt to link Iraq and the war on terror. Actually, on this one, Kerry countered him very well.
-About his refusal to join the International War Crimes tribunal (:lol: he can't even say it properly: "I won't let us join a 'criminal court'")
-His claim that a bilateral talk would disrupt multilateral talks with North Korea

The only good point Kerry has was about the nuclear test ban treaty which Bush is planning to abandon. I think he said that, if you can't obey international treaties, you can't expect others to do so. He was very forceful and convincing on that. He should have been the same in all those points.

Btw, are Israelis allowed to vote in U.S. election? What's up with both candidates pledging to protect the "security of Israel"?
All I know is, Carole Ann, my personal assistant, was watching Fox news this morning in the kitchen when I was eating my breakfast, and Fox News was saying that Kerry won the debate. I mean, if Fox is saying that, then Kerry must have really won it.

Wigglytuff
Oct 1st, 2004, 08:37 PM
you forgot one, volcana...

kerry supporters (oh, sorry, i meant bush-haters) are so zealous and irritating that some of us would never vote for the guy even if we agree with his policies.

LOL, love the joke, because it is a joke right, surely american people are smart enough not to vote AGAINST their OWN best interest just because other people voting with YOUR self interest in mind see the world differently.

this not even junior high, that's so second grade. thankfully, it is hoped that bush supports like bush for a reason other than "yeah i like kerry, but i cant vote for him because that guy down the street i dont like, likes kerry, so i am voting for the guy i dont like"

LOL, seriously, the voting public is smarter than that. arent they?

Wigglytuff
Oct 1st, 2004, 08:45 PM
if you ask me, i'd say anyone who voted for Bush must be plain dumb anyway.

SNIP

wait and watch. i still think bush is unbeatable.

180o turn? or something missing? that is to say, you dont think people who are smart but bush will still win?

just asking for clarification here.


as an aside:
if i were John Edwards, i would call up bill "BJ" Clinton and say "hey can you be my mentor, wanna be president too!"

Wigglytuff
Oct 1st, 2004, 08:55 PM
The title of this thread is an insult to parrots.

indeed parrots are VERY bright birds. not at all like jr. parrots do indeed have a bad wrap but the are rather smart!

Circe
Oct 1st, 2004, 09:31 PM
180o turn? or something missing? that is to say, you dont think people who are smart but bush will still win?

just asking for clarification here.


as an aside:
if i were John Edwards, i would call up bill "BJ" Clinton and say "hey can you be my mentor, wanna be president too!"

of course something's missing. you snipped it out.
to clarify, people like me (and you, i suppose) might well think that voting for Bush is an incredibly stupid thing to do. speaking for myself, i am convinced that it is. that is NOT what a LOT of other people might say. people who are either a) dumb to begin with or b) have bought into the republican spiel defaming Kerry and projecting Bush as a white knight.

in my last statement i am merely pointing out that i beleive my held opinion that bush is a dangerous lunatic is not shared by the voting majority.

hope that clears things up.

Hulet
Oct 1st, 2004, 09:55 PM
All I know is, Carole Ann, my personal assistant, was watching Fox news this morning in the kitchen when I was eating my breakfast, and Fox News was saying that Kerry won the debate. I mean, if Fox is saying that, then Kerry must have really won it.
My point wasn't about who won the debate, more about who did well based on expectation. Of course, the only way Bush could win was if Kerry made mistakes but thankfully Kerry didn't make any. I guess I expected Kerry to do so much better (i.e articulate his position so well and show the hypocrisy and madness of Bush's policy so clearly). So, in terms of win or lose, I guess both lost.

DeDe4925
Oct 1st, 2004, 10:21 PM
http://www.biohabit.org/mt/archives/Bizarro.gif

:)
:lol: :lol: :lol:

njguido11
Oct 1st, 2004, 10:35 PM
Honestly i think kerry did a lil better but not by a huge manner at all. FOr me BUsh could have easily won this debate. Kerry set himself up for defeit on alot of points and Bush didnt attack. WHATS KERRYS BIG plan in IRAQ?? Train more Iraqi troops. Sounds like the same thing Bush said. KErry thinks that the war is a mistake but he will keep are troops over there. IM sure id love to know my leader doesnt believe in my cause. My friend whose been in Iraq was saying how he was very offended by the term Kerry used "Backdoor draft" considering he volunteered for the army and pre 9-11. There are over 30 nations contributing in Iraq, I would be very offended if i was from one of those countrys and have to keep hearing how the USA is doing it "ALONE

DeDe4925
Oct 1st, 2004, 10:36 PM
Henry Wenta, a distributor for a major beer company, was totally committed to Bush before the debate began and remained so after it was over. But he said there was no clear winner to the encounter.



"John Kerry is cold, he was yelling all the time. Bush is friendly and speaking to us, not to Jim (moderator Jim Lehrer). Bush -- I believe him, I believe everything he says. He still has my vote," he said.




I think this guy's had one too many beers. He has destroyed his brain cells and his ability to discern when someone is telling the truth or lying. :lol:

jbone_0307
Oct 1st, 2004, 10:36 PM
Bush is more a flip flopper than Kerry and I think he needs to expose it. He both opposed Homeland Security and the 9/11 commission, which he now praises, has changed stances on the War in Iraq, one week telling viewers that it could not be won, and all of a sudden says that were doing good and were going to win, and also folded under pressure to allow Condoleeza Rice to testify to the 9/11 Commission. If that isn't flip floping then I dont know what is.

DeDe4925
Oct 1st, 2004, 10:42 PM
Bush's followers don't back him because he's articulate. It's more subtle, and more emotional than that.

a) They flat-out LIKE the guy. That means a lot. It helped Clinton get elected twice.

b) Bush uses a biblical references and quotes without attribute. Devout Christian catch them. The rest of us don't. I have my Mom to point them out to me, and now I'm getting better at catching them. One of the last three seconds in Bush's closing statement was a biblical quote. He does use a slightly different inflection when saying them, but if you don't know to look for them, they're easy to miss.

Please provide an example, because I'm a student of the bible and a devout Christian, and my boyfriend is an ordained minister (yes I cuss alot and he hates it, but I gotta be me :p ) and we watched the debate together. Not once did either of us hear any scriptures or biblical references come out of Bush's mouth.


Even Kerry's stock line 'Help is on the way', reminds people that we NEED help.

"Feel good" vs "Feel bad" - Feel good usually wins.

But, we do need help and even more so, the kids over there in Iraq. They don't want messages (as Bush seems so worried about), they want help.

What also floored me was that Bush's spin doctors said that it was a waste of time to try and get France and the other countries involved in the war to help us because Bush pushed them away. But why is it a waste of time to try? Nothing Bush or his supporters say make any common sense to me.

DeDe4925
Oct 1st, 2004, 10:58 PM
you forgot one, volcana...

kerry supporters (oh, sorry, i meant bush-haters) are so zealous and irritating that some of us would never vote for the guy even if we agree with his policies.
It's called being a "sheeple". Mindlessly following Bush, like a bunch of sheep. Bush supporters are pathetic. :lol: :lol:

DeDe4925
Oct 1st, 2004, 10:59 PM
CNN Poll

Created: Thursday, September 30, 2004, at 21:06:37 EDT
Who do you think won the first U.S. presidential debate?

President George W. Bush 21% 168950 votes

Sen. John Kerry 71% 557914 votes

Evenly matched 8% 61126 votes
Total: 787990 votes


This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions

DeDe4925
Oct 1st, 2004, 11:09 PM
LOL, love the joke, because it is a joke right, surely american people are smart enough not to vote AGAINST their OWN best interest just because other people voting with YOUR self interest in mind see the world differently.

this not even junior high, that's so second grade. thankfully, it is hoped that bush supports like bush for a reason other than "yeah i like kerry, but i cant vote for him because that guy down the street i dont like, likes kerry, so i am voting for the guy i dont like"

LOL, seriously, the voting public is smarter than that. arent they?
Why do you think Bush is in office now? Besides stealing the election, he did get some votes. Lord help us. :rolleyes:

DeDe4925
Oct 1st, 2004, 11:24 PM
Honestly i think kerry did a lil better but not by a huge manner at all. FOr me BUsh could have easily won this debate. Kerry set himself up for defeit on alot of points and Bush didnt attack. WHATS KERRYS BIG plan in IRAQ?? Train more Iraqi troops. Sounds like the same thing Bush said. KErry thinks that the war is a mistake but he will keep are troops over there. IM sure id love to know my leader doesnt believe in my cause. My friend whose been in Iraq was saying how he was very offended by the term Kerry used "Backdoor draft" considering he volunteered for the army and pre 9-11. There are over 30 nations contributing in Iraq, I would be very offended if i was from one of those countrys and have to keep hearing how the USA is doing it "ALONE
I have one question for you. Are you familiar with the Vietnam War? Would you rather have someone support the invasion of Iraq and keep troops there without help or equipment or would you rather someone hate the war, but support the troops. Hell, he can dislike the war and the fact that our troops are there. The fact remains is that they are there and they have to stay there until Kerry can find a way to get them out. Bush is not even trying to figure out how to get them out. He wants to rebuild Iraq into a functioning nation with a well trained army. He can't do that, and wouldn't have to do that if we had never invaded in the first place. Which was a BIG MISTAKE. Hopefully if Kerry gets in office, we can get some help from other powerful allied nations and figure out a way to help the Iraqis function on their own and get our troops out.

Are you a kid without reasoning abilities, are you just one of Bush's sheeple?

DeDe4925
Oct 1st, 2004, 11:28 PM
Gallup Poll
"October 01, 2004
Kerry Wins Debate
Viewers also more favorable to Kerry, but opinions about Iraq and military leadership still favor Bush


by David W. Moore

Page: 1, 2 Next

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- John Kerry won the debate Thursday night, 53% to 37%, according to a random sample of 615 registered voters who watched the event. Almost half of the viewers said they felt more favorable about the senator because of the debate, and 60% said Kerry expressed himself more clearly than did President Bush.

Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the better job in the debate -- [ROTATED: John Kerry (or) George W. Bush]?




Kerry


Bush

NEITHER (vol.)
BOTH/ EQUALLY (vol.)

No
opinion

%
%
%
%
%

Overall
53
37
1
8
1


Republicans
17
71
1
10
1

Independents
60
29
*
10
1

Democrats
87
8
0
5
0


Male
53
37
1
9
*

Female
53
38
*
8
1


Voting for Kerry (pre-debate)
93
3
0
4
0

Voting for Bush (pre-debate)
19
68
1
11
1

* Less than 0.5%

(vol.) Volunteered response


Democrats rallied behind Kerry's performance by 87% to 8%, while Republicans rallied behind Bush's performance by a somewhat smaller margin, 71% to 17%. But independents chose Kerry by a two-to-one margin, 60% to 29%.

Among viewers who indicated in the pre-debate survey that they intended to vote for Kerry, 93% thought Kerry won the debate and only 3% said Bush did.

Bush's supporters were not as convinced their candidate won -- choosing Bush by 68% to 19%, with 11% saying it was a tie.

Men and women expressed virtually identical views in favor of Kerry.

Despite the positive assessment, viewers said they favored Bush in handling the war in Iraq and serving as commander in chief, little changed from opinions expressed before the debate. And a majority of viewers said it was Bush who better demonstrated he is tough enough for the job.

The poll shows that 46% of viewers said they felt more favorable toward Kerry as a result of the debate, while just 13% felt less favorable. By comparison, just 21% of viewers felt more favorable toward Bush, and 17% felt less favorable.

How has your opinion of John Kerry/George W. Bush been affected by the debate? Is your opinion of Kerry -- more favorable, less favorable, or has it not changed much? [Names rotated.]


More favorable
Less
favorable
Not changed much
No
opinion


Kerry
46%
13
41
*

Bush
21%
17
62
*

* Less than 0.5%


However, viewers did not change their minds about who would do a better job in Iraq or better serve as the country's military leader.

Prior to the debate, viewers chose Bush over Kerry in handling the Iraq war by 54% to 40%. After the debate, the comparable figures were essentially unchanged, 54% to 43%.

Next, regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you think John Kerry or George W. Bush would better handle the situation in Iraq.



Kerry
Bush
SAME (vol.)
No opinion

Kerry/Bush 2004

2004 Sep 30 (Post-debate)
43%
54
1
2

2004 Sep 28-29 (Pre-debate)
40%
54
2
4

(vol.) Volunteered response


Similarly, viewers pointed to Bush as the candidate they would trust more to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief -- before the debate by 55% to 42%, and after the debate by 54% to 44%.

Who do you trust more to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief of the military -- [ROTATED: John Kerry, (or) George W. Bush]?




Kerry


Bush
BOTH/ EQUALLY (vol.)

NEITHER
(vol.)

No
opinion

Kerry/Bush 2004

2004 Sep 30 (Post-debate)
44%
54
1
*
1

2004 Sep 28-29 (Pre-debate)
42%
55
*
1
2

* Less than 0.5%

(vol.) Volunteered response


Viewers saw Kerry as more articulate in the debate than Bush (60% to 32%), though they divided equally as to which candidate had a better understanding of the issues (41% each).

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one better described John Kerry or George W. Bush during tonight's debate. How about -- [Random Order]?


2004 Sep 30
(sorted by advantage for Kerry)

Kerry

Bush

Advantage

%
%
pct. pts.

Expressed himself more clearly
60
32
+28

Had a good understanding of the issues
41
41
0

Agreed with you more on the issues you care about
46
49
-3

Was more believable
45
50
-5

Was more likable
41
48
-7

Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job
37
54
-17


+
Advantage indicates Kerry lead

-
Advantage indicates Bush lead


Viewers leaned toward Bush on which candidate agreed with them on issues, who was more believable, and who was more likable. And by 54% to 37%, viewers said Bush better demonstrated he is tough enough for the job.

These results are based on a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey, conducted Thursday night immediately after the end of the presidential debate, which ended at 10:30 p.m. Eastern time. Respondents in the sample were first interviewed Sept. 28-29, when they indicated they expected to watch the debate and that they were willing to be called when the debate finished.

In that pre-debate survey, 52% of the viewers who were included in Thursday night's sample said they supported Bush and 44% supported Kerry, similar to the vote preference measured among likely voters in the Sept. 24-26 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. Thirty-six percent of Thursday night's viewers identified themselves as Republicans, 32% as independents, and 32% as Democrats.

Survey Methods


All results are based on telephone interviews with 615 registered voters, aged 18 and older, who watched the presidential debate Sept. 30, 2004. Respondents were first interviewed Sept. 28-29, 2004, when they indicated there was some chance they would watch Thursday's debate and were willing to be called back. For results based on the total sample of debate watchers, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days."

wta_zuperfann
Oct 1st, 2004, 11:36 PM
If I were Bush , I'd drop out of the next debate :o



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Bushshit might do better in the next debate if he shows up sober. Honestly, the guy looked like he had been drinking or drugged up. Did you note the anger :fiery: in his face???

Awful. Pitiful.



One thing's for sure = you can count on another Orange Alert just before the next debate and certainly before the elections.


Bush = :o

DeDe4925
Oct 1st, 2004, 11:40 PM
How can so many people on this message board despise Bush and so many people I know and hear about despise him and he's ahead in the polls?

RandyRhodes
Oct 2nd, 2004, 12:17 AM
I'm going to give my vote to the candidate who will keep me safe and not raise my taxes. It's also very important to me that I don't give my vote to a flip flopper. That's why I'm not voting for Bush.

Kerry in a landslide! :bounce:

I have no idea where Bush stands on the issues. He changes his mind so much.

RandyRhodes
Oct 2nd, 2004, 12:21 AM
How can so many people on this message board despise Bush and so many people I know and hear about despise him and he's ahead in the polls?

Because the polls only poll LIKELY voters which mean they survey 10% more Republicans than Democrats since Republicans usually have a higher turnout. But Bush is the most hated man in the world since Hitler. There will be a huge turn out this year and Bush wont stand a chance.

Democrats also have had a 250% increase in voter registration in swing states. Republicans have had 25%.

Kerry in a landslide! :bounce:

Pureracket
Oct 2nd, 2004, 12:55 AM
How can so many people on this message board despise Bush and so many people I know and hear about despise him and he's ahead in the polls?Good question.

GBFH
Oct 2nd, 2004, 12:59 AM
LOL, love the joke, because it is a joke right, surely american people are smart enough not to vote AGAINST their OWN best interest just because other people voting with YOUR self interest in mind see the world differently.

this not even junior high, that's so second grade. thankfully, it is hoped that bush supports like bush for a reason other than "yeah i like kerry, but i cant vote for him because that guy down the street i dont like, likes kerry, so i am voting for the guy i dont like"

LOL, seriously, the voting public is smarter than that. arent they?
i'm sorry, but WHO is voting with MY self-interests in mind? oh that's right...me :)

so like...LOL, seriously...;)

RandyRhodes
Oct 2nd, 2004, 01:20 AM
Good question.

I already answered it :wavey:

Kerry in a landslide! :bounce:

RandyRhodes
Oct 2nd, 2004, 01:30 AM
Let me explain this in another way.

Pretend like you have a jar of red and blue M&Ms. They're all mixed up. You put both hands in and scoop a bunch out. You count the number of red M&Ms and the number of blue M&Ms. You find that there are 6-9% more red M&Ms than blue M&Ms. This is how the polling is done. But what they don't tell you is, they put 10% more red M&Ms in the jar. So it is more likely that you will get more red than blue. But you have to examine this further. There were actually MORE blue M&Ms but they were never put in the jar because the last time you tried this out, there were 10% more red in your hand so you just assumed that the outcome would be the same so you didn't bother putting in all the blue M&Ms. Also, 250% MORE blue M&Ms were created since the last time you tried this but you never factored that in. So it is likely, that there are FAR more blue M&Ms than red but you wouldn't know because you haven't put them in the jar.

That's how polling is done.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Kerry in a landslide!

Wigglytuff
Oct 2nd, 2004, 01:39 AM
i'm sorry, but WHO is voting with MY self-interests in mind? oh that's right...me :)

so like...LOL, seriously...;)

hmm hmmm non-direct responsive goodness!

i could go on and aon about how bushes policies dont benefit most of the people who vote for him because most of them dont make 200K a year or more. but why bother when one will get more non-direct responsive goodness.

Why do you think Bush is in office now? Besides stealing the election, he did get some votes. Lord help us. :rolleyes:

yes yes i must say you have corrected me.

GBFH
Oct 2nd, 2004, 02:03 AM
hmm hmmm non-direct responsive goodness!

i could go on and aon about how bushes policies dont benefit most of the people who vote for him because most of them dont make 200K a year or more. but why bother when one will get more non-direct responsive goodness.



yes yes i must say you have corrected me.
actually...my dad does...and since i'm his dependent :angel:

Wigglytuff
Oct 2nd, 2004, 07:58 AM
actually...my dad does...and since i'm his dependent :angel:

i stand corrected...partially.

it is in, or rather your fathers, best interest to vote for bush,

but MOST of his followers, as i said earlier, do not make far short of that, and thus vote agaisnt their own best socio-economic interests. i could go into the details, but really whats the point.

njguido11
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:02 AM
How can so many people on this message board despise Bush and so many people I know and hear about despise him and he's ahead in the polls?

THis is such a typical comment. Try talkin to people outside your circle. I actually volunteerd for the republican party for the last month getting voters registered in the philly suburbs. I went into it thinking i was gonna have to deal with alot of Kerry supporters and i would honestly say 75 percent of the people and this was goin door 2 door basically supported Bush and were pretty damn set it their ways. I mean this was mostly the bucks county area which i would consider middle class, maybe upper middle class but def not RICh

CondiLicious
Oct 2nd, 2004, 10:16 PM
Let me explain this in another way.

Pretend like you have a jar of red and blue M&Ms. They're all mixed up. You put both hands in and scoop a bunch out. You count the number of red M&Ms and the number of blue M&Ms. You find that there are 6-9% more red M&Ms than blue M&Ms. This is how the polling is done. But what they don't tell you is, they put 10% more red M&Ms in the jar. So it is more likely that you will get more red than blue. But you have to examine this further. There were actually MORE blue M&Ms but they were never put in the jar because the last time you tried this out, there were 10% more red in your hand so you just assumed that the outcome would be the same so you didn't bother putting in all the blue M&Ms. Also, 250% MORE blue M&Ms were created since the last time you tried this but you never factored that in. So it is likely, that there are FAR more blue M&Ms than red but you wouldn't know because you haven't put them in the jar.

That's how polling is done.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Kerry in a landslide!
You're so smart Randy.

Volcana
Oct 2nd, 2004, 10:36 PM
Please provide an example, because I'm a student of the bible and a devout Christian, and my boyfriend is an ordained minister (yes I cuss alot and he hates it, but I gotta be me :p ) and we watched the debate together. Not once did either of us hear any scriptures or biblical references come out of Bush's mouth.I will search for it. I will have to find a transcript first. Give me a couple days and feel free to remind me.

Volcana
Oct 2nd, 2004, 10:58 PM
Honestly i think Kerry did a lil better but not by a huge manner at all. FOr me Bush could have easily won this debate. Kerry set himself up for defeit on alot of points and Bush didnt attack. WHATS KERRYS BIG plan in IRAQ?? Train more Iraqi troops. Sounds like the same thing Bush said.a) train troops FASTER. Contrary to what Bush said, we DON'T have 100,000 troops trained. We have about 45,000 PARTIALLY trained. And as US commanders keep pointing out, some of them are actually working withthe guerillas.
b) Get countries with BIG militaries and a LOT of troops to help. Why shoudl they help when Kerry says (correctly) that this war is a fuckup? Money. Kerry will let their companies bid on the contracts that Bush cut them out of. Kerry will honor their existing contracts for Iraqi oil.
c) Kerry will actually fix the cement factories and water treatement plants. Those places aren't being sabotaged. We just aren't fixing them, whil we focus all our efforts on oil. Kerry won't leave 75% of the Iraqi population drinking raw sewage as they are now, and as they were NOT before we invaded.

KErry thinks that the war is a mistake but he will keep are troops over there. IM sure id love to know my leader doesnt believe in my cause. Kerry was blunt and correct about this. The war was a mistake. But having destroyed the government of the country, and having drawn ten of thousands of terrorists and criminals into the country, we are obligated to stay. We owe it to the Iraqi people, since we've turned their country into a haven for terrorists THAT IT WAS NOT. And having DELIBERATELY TURNED IRAQ INTO a haven for terrorists, we owe it to the American people not to let Iraq kill or capture them.

In other words, Bush mistake was an incredible fuck up, that endangered people in the Middle East and North America. All we can do now is try to minimize the damage the invasion caused. THAT is why we will still be in Iraq fighting.My friend whose been in Iraq was saying how he was very offended by the term Kerry used "Backdoor draft" considering he volunteered for the army and pre 9-11.Then your friend hasn't bothered to understand what the term means. "Backdoor draft" refers to the policy of "stop loss", in which, after your tour of duty is OVER, the military FORCES you to stay. You AREN'T a volunteer anymore at that point. You're somebody who the military is forcing to stay in uniform. Just as if you were DRAFTED.There are over 30 nations contributing in Iraq, I would be very offended if i was from one of those countrys and have to keep hearing how the USA is doing it "ALONELet them be offended. Kerry explain this very well in the debate. We have 90% of the forces. England has 5000-10,000, Australia and Poland 1000-5000, and nobody else has more than 1000, which, in military terms is a token amount. 1000 troops aren't even control one city.

If you paying 90% of the expenses and incurring 90% of the caualties, you are NOT in a coalition of 30 countries. We've got the army fully committed, the marines fully committed, the National Guard mobilized, the Reserves AND the Ready Reserves mobilized. The only other country in the 'Coalition of the Billing' who's military is even strained a LITTLE by their commitment to the war in Iraq is England. Meanwhile we're telling 57 year olds with 20 of service that they can't retire.

The entities with big enough militaries to be helpful are the UN, NATO, France, China, Russia, the African Union and Nigeria. (And North Korea, but I don't expect any help from there.)

Hopefully, the African Union and Nigeria will clean up that mess in the Sudan. That leaves the UN, NATO, France, China, Russia. We will get no significant commitment of ground forces from any of those entites while we're trying to set up Iraq as a military base or a cash cow for the United States. Fortunately, Kerry is committed to using Iraq to make Bush's friends money.

Berlin_Calling
Oct 3rd, 2004, 04:15 AM
Bush/Cheney '04 :bounce::bounce:

DeDe4925
Oct 5th, 2004, 08:03 PM
THis is such a typical comment. Try talkin to people outside your circle. I actually volunteerd for the republican party for the last month getting voters registered in the philly suburbs. I went into it thinking i was gonna have to deal with alot of Kerry supporters and i would honestly say 75 percent of the people and this was goin door 2 door basically supported Bush and were pretty damn set it their ways. I mean this was mostly the bucks county area which i would consider middle class, maybe upper middle class but def not RICh
You must be an idiot. What makes you think I'm not talking to or more importantly listening to people outside "my circle". :lol:

DeDe4925
Oct 5th, 2004, 08:05 PM
THis is such a typical comment. Try talkin to people outside your circle. I actually volunteerd for the republican party for the last month getting voters registered in the philly suburbs. I went into it thinking i was gonna have to deal with alot of Kerry supporters and i would honestly say 75 percent of the people and this was goin door 2 door basically supported Bush and were pretty damn set it their ways. I mean this was mostly the bucks county area which i would consider middle class, maybe upper middle class but def not RICh
:lol: Pennsylvania?? I wouldn't doubt it in that area. Mostly blue collar patriots, right??

DeDe4925
Oct 6th, 2004, 10:34 PM
Bush/Cheney '04 :bounce::bounce:
Could you elect them as pres and vp in your fantasy and keep them out of our country?

Justeenium
Nov 3rd, 2004, 05:17 PM
Let me explain this in another way.

Pretend like you have a jar of red and blue M&Ms. They're all mixed up. You put both hands in and scoop a bunch out. You count the number of red M&Ms and the number of blue M&Ms. You find that there are 6-9% more red M&Ms than blue M&Ms. This is how the polling is done. But what they don't tell you is, they put 10% more red M&Ms in the jar. So it is more likely that you will get more red than blue. But you have to examine this further. There were actually MORE blue M&Ms but they were never put in the jar because the last time you tried this out, there were 10% more red in your hand so you just assumed that the outcome would be the same so you didn't bother putting in all the blue M&Ms. Also, 250% MORE blue M&Ms were created since the last time you tried this but you never factored that in. So it is likely, that there are FAR more blue M&Ms than red but you wouldn't know because you haven't put them in the jar.

That's how polling is done.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Kerry in a landslide!
You're so smart Randy.
:)
:yeah:

DeDe4925
Nov 3rd, 2004, 05:51 PM
:sobbing: I'm so sick