GORE To Rip BUSH's Lungs Out In Debates
cracked_...@my-deja.com
"Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics," Fallows argues,
"a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and who
leaves opponents not just beaten but brutalized."
"Fallows' exhaustive piece, "An Acquired Taste," shows how years of
devotion to success in these high-stakes encounters have left Gore the
politician "best able to change, purely through debate, the momentum of
a political or policy contest."
It will be Tremendous Fun To Watch Every One.
The GOP have their collective diapers on, to catch the load.
The RepubliKans will have to rent a power washer, to collect the pieces
of the 'Dynamic~Dunce' off the debate hall walls ;o)
Commentary: Gore again likely to go for jugular in autumn debate
Matthew Miller Los Angeles Times
Friday, June 23, 2000
(www.startribune.com)
With polls showing George W. Bush with a sturdy lead even among women
and independent voters, and Al Gore shaking up his campaign team once
again, it's tempting to think that the vice president's White House bid
is in deep trouble.
But a must-read cover story by James Fallows in the July issue of the
Atlantic Monthly reminds us that Gore's brutal mastery of televised
political debates means that the fight won't truly begin until the fall.
"Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics," Fallows argues, "a
ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and who leaves
opponents not just beaten but brutalized."
Fallows' exhaustive piece, "An Acquired Taste," shows how years of
devotion to success in these high-stakes encounters have left Gore the
politician "best able to change, purely through debate, the momentum of
a political or policy contest."
Since Gore is downright annoying as a public speaker, it's easy to
forget how effective he's been in these settings.
Pundits thought Ross Perot would make mincemeat of Gore in their pivotal
1993 debate on the North American Free Trade Agreement; a week later,
NAFTA was on its way to victory, and Perot's decline as serious public
figure had begun.
In 1996 Republicans expected the charming Jack Kemp to reenergize Bob
Dole's campaign with a win over the grim Gore in the vice-presidential
face-off; instead, Gore made Kemp look like an unprepared dilettante.
This year Gore crushed Bill Bradley in a series of debates by
demagoguing his health plan in ways Bradley never effectively countered.
Getting to Perot
Fallows details how Gore and his advisers meticulously prepared for each
encounter, looked for the jugular and spared no effort to exploit the
opponent's key weakness.
Perot's vulnerability, Gore felt, was his temper, and so he plotted for
weeks on how to needle Perot on the air in ways that would make the
Texan explode.
For Kemp, Team Gore set up a weeklong "debate camp" in Sarasota, Fla.,
where Gore did full-scale mock debates each night on a stage designed to
match the real one.
The Bradley battle showed Gore at his most ruthless.
Gore caricatured his health plan --actually much bolder than Gore's own
-- in ways that made it seem bad for poor people.
Then, knowing that Bradley took sanctimonious pride in his commitment to
better race relations, Gore made the astonishing accusation that
Bradley's plan to cover America's 44 million uninsured would hurt blacks
and Hispanics. The charges got under Bradley's skin and kept him on the
defensive. (BTW, Gore was once 20 points BEHIND Bradley)
'What is necessary'
"Gore is manifestly willing to lie for political convenience," Fallows
concludes. After spending several days watching tapes of Gore's
speeches, press conferences and debates since 1987
(who says journalists don't sacrifice for the public good!), Fallows
says the image that kept coming to mind was the evolution of Al Pacino's
Michael Corleone over the three "Godfather" movies: "in the beginning, a
clear-eyed young idealist; in the end, a heavy-lidded, stone-faced
man of respect who has outgrown illusions and faced up to the
responsibility of doing what is necessary."
In other words: Nothing personal, Sen. Bradley. It's just business.
Fallows told me in an interview that Gore's advisers have two nightmare
scenarios in the coming debates with Bush:
First, that Bush finds an appealing, Reaganesque way to crack jokes
above the fray; and, second, that Gore will come across as brutal in his
attacks on the Texas governor's record and plans.
Still, Fallows adds, "Bush has shown that he can get flustered in
public." And his "most winning moments of geniality," Fallows argues,
"have come when he's not feeling pressure."
Seen this way, Campaign 2000 won't get serious until Gore turns up that
pressure in front of tens of millions of Americans this fall.
Gore's record proves that Bush won't be able to wing his way through
this one.
How Bush handles the Democratic destroyer live on TV may well determine
who becomes the next president.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tarver Engineering
<cracked_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8j5kra$tfb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> "Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics," Fallows argues,
> "a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and who
> leaves opponents not just beaten but brutalized."
Why even have debates, gore juinior is already a loser.
John
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Michael Zarlenga
: Commentary: Gore again likely to go for jugular in autumn debate
Well, he has to do SOMETHING drastic to help his poll
numbers, else he'll go down in history as a bigger loser
than even the Fritz and Tits ticket against Reagan in
1984.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Mary E Knadler
<jta...@tminet.com> writes:
>
>
><cracked_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8j5kra$tfb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>>
>> "Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics," Fallows argues,
>> "a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and who
>> leaves opponents not just beaten but brutalized."
>
>
>John
>
>
How many people will be listening. I'm been hearing most folks are
too "bored" especially with AlBore & more LIES!
Tarver Engineering
Mary E Knadler <yas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8j5q81$j3$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
We are already getting plenty of gore junior lies about campaign finance.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
><cracked_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8j5kra$tfb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>>
>> "Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics," Fallows argues,
>> "a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and who
>> leaves opponents not just beaten but brutalized."
>
>Why even have debates, gore juinior is already a loser.
Yeah. His dad tried to dodge in 1992 and the Clinton guys just sent a
guy in a chicken suit to every Bush event.
Chicken George, Chicken George,,, it got to be a drumbeat, and then
Bush started being obsessed with the chicken, kept talking about him
in the rallies, pointing to him, and it kept making the news,
Maybe Junior has a stronger character and can take the
drumbeat...chicken George, chicken George,,,,
Now a REPUB has offered a million to the charity of both guys if they
will debate on a single topic. Gore said yes, but Bush keeps
chickening out, for obvious reason - he's dumb as a post. Did you see
him in the Republican debates? The worst by far.
Bush is mediocre. No doubt about it.
That's why he burns the offer of millions for charity.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr
Tarver Engineering
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:58oclsorqgdhupqj4...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:20:42 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><cracked_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:8j5kra$tfb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> "Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics," Fallows argues,
> >> "a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and who
> >> leaves opponents not just beaten but brutalized."
> >
> >Why even have debates, gore juinior is already a loser.
>
> Yeah. His dad tried to dodge in 1992 and the Clinton guys just sent a
> guy in a chicken suit to every Bush event.
First a draft dodging coward sends a chicken and now the android can send a
tree.
bill...@my-deja.com
cracked_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> "Gore is manifestly willing to lie for political convenience,"
Fallows concludes.
Great quote! Hopefully the American public will be using their
keen "bullshit detectors" when the debates roll around. I know Dems
don't have the ability to discern lies from truth, so Gore was able to
easily defeat Bradley in the Dem debates and primaries. But when the
whole nation is looking, we'll see how long Gore can lie before
the "Clinton fatigue" transfers to him.
--
Bill Cable - Steelers Fan & Star Wars Collector
http://www.swdrawings.com * cabl...@swdrawings.com
Visit SWDrawings.com - a whole new universe of fan art!
N9NWO
to set the stage in the convention by getting Reagan on and off the
stage (showed connection with the past) yet was able to establish
himself as separate from Reagan. Junior Gore may also be able to
do that. But then, in 1988, Bush did not have the third party opposition
that he had in 1992. Or that Junior Gore has now.
As far as the debates, it was Clinton's ability to connect with people.
The one scene where a woman asks Clinton a question and Clinton
steps forward to answer (while Pres. Bush looks at his watch) was
the one incident that made the public feel that Clinton cared about them
and Bush did not.
Junior Gore may have intellect, but like most of those who are smart,
he really does deal with people well. GWB, meanwhile, seems to
connect with the common man. Almost at a populist level like Reagan
did. And debates are not won over intellect but the human aspect.
: "Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics," Fallows argues,
: "a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and who
: leaves opponents not just beaten but brutalized."
:
: "Fallows' exhaustive piece, "An Acquired Taste," shows how years of
: devotion to success in these high-stakes encounters have left Gore the
: politician "best able to change, purely through debate, the momentum of
: a political or policy contest."
:
: It will be Tremendous Fun To Watch Every One.
: The GOP have their collective diapers on, to catch the load.
: The RepubliKans will have to rent a power washer, to collect the pieces
: of the 'Dynamic~Dunce' off the debate hall walls ;o)
:
: Commentary: Gore again likely to go for jugular in autumn debate
:
: Matthew Miller Los Angeles Times
: Friday, June 23, 2000
: (www.startribune.com)
:
: With polls showing George W. Bush with a sturdy lead even among women
: and independent voters, and Al Gore shaking up his campaign team once
: again, it's tempting to think that the vice president's White House bid
: is in deep trouble.
:
: But a must-read cover story by James Fallows in the July issue of the
: Atlantic Monthly reminds us that Gore's brutal mastery of televised
: political debates means that the fight won't truly begin until the fall.
:
: "Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics," Fallows argues, "a
: ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and who leaves
: opponents not just beaten but brutalized."
:
: Fallows' exhaustive piece, "An Acquired Taste," shows how years of
:
: "Gore is manifestly willing to lie for political convenience," Fallows
: concludes. After spending several days watching tapes of Gore's
cracked_...@my-deja.com
bill...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8j5kra$tfb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> cracked_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Fallows concludes.
>
> keen "bullshit detectors" when the debates roll around. I know Dems
> don't have the ability to discern lies from truth, so Gore was able
to
> easily defeat Bradley in the Dem debates and primaries. But when the
> whole nation is looking, we'll see how long Gore can lie before
> the "Clinton fatigue" transfers to him.
In all fairness, I try to copy as much out of any article I post
VERBATIM, and select not to edit content unless the article has to be
truncated for size... so 'my guy' gets hit broadsides alot too..
BUT, we will see how much 'Clinton Fatigue', or Gore's "lying" about
"political convenience" will have an IOTA to do with the outcome of this
race.
People are going to come to FOCUS in this race, in Late September, and
early October. When the two major party candidates are compared,
IDEA-to-IDEA, Face-To-Face in debates and town forums, there aren't
gonna be any more placards for Mr. Bush to stumble over when trying to
re-play the cassette that is loaded into the player between his ears...
There isn't gonna BE a PLATITUDE RESPONSE that is going to work for him
in the instance of a Bush/Gore DEBATE.
People vote FOR a candidate who sincerely KNOWS THE ISSUES the certain
candidate speaks of, (they call it Self-Knowledge), one who has DETAILS
on any proposition upheld to scrutiny, not just platitude and a
shot-in-the-dark wish list.
Voters tend to shy away from the candidate who comes off like a
programmed-by-handlers Robot, (A.K.A., a poseur) who cannot articulate a
non-platitude response, or think for *himself* without a "little birdie
or five" ;o) whispering into his ear. Bush has demonstrated the
programming capabilities of his handlers on many a debate, the voters
will be looking fo INSIGHT and ANSWERS, this November.
Gore isn't the candidate of the millenium...but when compared to the
'Karaoke Kandidate', (A.K.A. George W. Bush).... he is head, shoulders
and leg-room above the GOP's "Fine$t example".
SEE YOU AT THE POLLS...... C_S
CB
conspired and got OPEC to raise oil prices to help foreign countries payback
their debt to the US.
al gore and bill clinton's OPEC scheme will backfire so that al will look
better as a DNC scapegoat and leek truths about his elegal dealings. The DNC
should have dumped both those losers during the impeachment.
CB
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote in message
news:8Vt55.925$fB2....@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh cracked_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : Commentary: Gore again likely to go for jugular in autumn debate
>
mahabarbara
>In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh cracked_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>: Commentary: Gore again likely to go for jugular in autumn
debate
>
>Well, he has to do SOMETHING drastic to help his poll
>numbers, else he'll go down in history as a bigger loser
>than even the Fritz and Tits ticket against Reagan in
>1984.
The polls don't mean anything this early. Most people won't
focus on the election until the party conventions. After that
start paying attention to polls.
If I were advising Gore I'd be telling him to save his
ammunition for later, and I suspect that's what he's doing.
B.
>
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
>
>
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Tarver Engineering
CB <C...@prayforme.com> wrote in message news:8j69hc$div$1...@news.ao.net...
> In the debates Bush will rub al's nose in the fact that clinton's/gore
> conspired and got OPEC to raise oil prices to help foreign countries
payback
> their debt to the US.
You mean Mexico.
> al gore and bill clinton's OPEC scheme will backfire so that al will look
> better as a DNC scapegoat and leek truths about his elegal dealings. The
DNC
> should have dumped both those losers during the impeachment.
Now they must pay the piper.
John
>
> CB
>
>
> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote in message
> news:8Vt55.925$fB2....@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> > In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh cracked_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > : Commentary: Gore again likely to go for jugular in autumn debate
> >
> > Well, he has to do SOMETHING drastic to help his poll
> > numbers, else he'll go down in history as a bigger loser
> > than even the Fritz and Tits ticket against Reagan in
> > 1984.
> >
> > --
> > -- Mike Zarlenga
Dave Simpson
Bill Cable wrote:
> Hopefully the American public will be using their keen
> "bullshit detectors" when the debates roll around.
They didn't have to be keen in 1996. Gore was a dunce.
Bush should appear to have several IQ points over Gore,
given how Gore appeared in 1996. Only the stupid would
have fallen for endless sound bites, ut-tered ve-ry slow-ly;
you had to be a child or an idiot to believe what Gore was
saying, and not to have been turned off by how it was said.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
Bill Cable wrote:
> People don't like Gore. He's boring. He talks to the
> public like a first grade teacher. He has zero charisma.
True, true, true, true.
It's all that, and while talking to people as though they
are children (do the DNC elite really think everyone's like
that?) the lectures contain stupid sound bite after stupid
sound bite...
> That's what's going to be most telling during the debates.
> It's going to be another Kennedy/Nixon.
I hope so. It can happen if Bush handles challenges okay.
Dave Simpson
Barbara wrote:
>The polls don't mean anything this early. Most people won't
>focus on the election until the party conventions. After that
>start paying attention to polls.
They have value right now, a coarse sanity-check kind of
value. Bush obviously should win in Texas this year, and
I believe he won't take New York; Gore has that state sewn
up, it already appears.
>If I were advising Gore I'd be telling him to save his
>ammunition for later, and I suspect that's what he's doing.
I doubt Gore has much, if any. If he offers initiatives
in policy clearly meant to attract Nader voters, he's sunk.
What can he do, other than present things that are paler
imitations of Bush initatives, and call them "fairer" or
"more humane" or whatever?
What he needs to do is take more coaching in how to speak
publicly, so he doesn't look like such a dunce, including
compared to Bush. Bush can't name people and places on a
map yet he appears smarter than Gore. And Bush doesn't
use baby talk to people the way Gore does. Gore? Yeech.
The man needs to try ONCE AGAIN to remodel himself and get
a new image. ("Faster than a speeding bullet! More changes
in appearance than Hillary's hair styles after 1992! ...")
The way it's going now, it's a close race, but while "Bush
isn't strong," time after time we get hints that "Gore is weak."
Gore began with this as his election to lose, and, well, he's
starting clearly to lose it. Recovery had better start soon.
In this defensive campaign (to move first fails), I think the
only remaining thing to wonder about is the effect of the VP
choices. The race is close enough it could be a make or break
thing, possibly more so than the debates. Will it be played
safely, like other things, or will Gore try for the kill? I
wonder who would go with Bush. Will it also be safe, or maybe
a relatively safe but interesting exercise of what amounts at
this time to the initiative, which Bush, not Gore, possesses?
I don't know, for example, what would happen if Bush picked
Christine Whitman to run as the VP. (I can't think of any good
candidate for Gore to pick other than possibly Bradley or Nader,
as a vote-getting move.)
Dave Simpson
>It is not worth it for conservatives to get their hopes up.
To me it's more in keeping with the defensive nature of this
campaign -- just take it easy, don't move too early and make a
mistake from which you cannot recover. (That goes for both the
candidates.)
>And while Gore could handle himself well in the debates, he
>still could lose the debates if the people feel that he is over
>intellectual (wooden) and uncaring.
No -- as wooden as he is, by what he says it comes across as
uncaring, or at least that he can say that the big, bad GOP
doesn't care about people. When he says that we can understand
what he is saying, even if it's BS. But his woodenness makes
him appear to be a total dunce, significantly less intelligent
than Bush, or Dan Quayle. Gore needs to lighten up. If he
only spoke smoothly and with a normal cadence, he could do well.
I've heard moments when he broke with...his...wood-en...speech...
pat-terns... and he sounded quite believeable, and in doing so
he'd put the pressure back on Bush if this were in a debate.
Of course, if he corrects his speech but still does the baby
talk, those of us who know better won't be amused, let alone
impressed.
Tarver Engineering
N9NWO <21...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:MDy55.2391$bJ5.5...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> : > > "Gore is manifestly willing to lie for political convenience,"
> : > Fallows concludes.
> : >
> : > Great quote! Hopefully the American public will be using their
> : > keen "bullshit detectors" when the debates roll around. I know Dems
> : > don't have the ability to discern lies from truth, so Gore was able
> : to easily defeat Bradley in the Dem debates and primaries. But when the
> : > whole nation is looking, we'll see how long Gore can lie before
> : > the "Clinton fatigue" transfers to him.
> :
> : In all fairness, I try to copy as much out of any article I post
> : VERBATIM, and select not to edit content unless the article has to be
> : truncated for size... so 'my guy' gets hit broadsides alot too..
> :
> : BUT, we will see how much 'Clinton Fatigue', or Gore's "lying" about
> : "political convenience" will have an IOTA to do with the outcome of this
> : race.
>
> using fear to keep democrats from not voting in 1998. Now
> the normal disgust that most party loyalists feel in the 6th year
> of a presidency has now been delayed to this year.
>
> : People are going to come to FOCUS in this race, in Late September, and
> : early October. When the two major party candidates are compared,
> : IDEA-to-IDEA, Face-To-Face in debates and town forums, there aren't
> : gonna be any more placards for Mr. Bush to stumble over when trying to
> : re-play the cassette that is loaded into the player between his ears...
> :
> : There isn't gonna BE a PLATITUDE RESPONSE that is going to work for him
> : in the instance of a Bush/Gore DEBATE.
> :
> : People vote FOR a candidate who sincerely KNOWS THE ISSUES the certain
> : candidate speaks of, (they call it Self-Knowledge), one who has DETAILS
> : on any proposition upheld to scrutiny, not just platitude and a
> : shot-in-the-dark wish list.
>
> Only egg heads and policy wonks do. Presidents get elected for emotional
> reasons. The person who connects with public on emotional level is the
> one who usually wins.
>
> : Voters tend to shy away from the candidate who comes off like a
> : programmed-by-handlers Robot, (A.K.A., a poseur) who cannot articulate a
> : non-platitude response, or think for *himself* without a "little birdie
> : or five" ;o) whispering into his ear. Bush has demonstrated the
> : programming capabilities of his handlers on many a debate, the voters
> : will be looking fo INSIGHT and ANSWERS, this November.
> :
> : Gore isn't the candidate of the millenium...but when compared to the
> : 'Karaoke Kandidate', (A.K.A. George W. Bush).... he is head, shoulders
> : and leg-room above the GOP's "Fine$t example".
> :
> : SEE YOU AT THE POLLS...... C_S
>
> level. He has no heart. And democrats love to feel, to be won
> emotionally.
How can a wooden boy feel anything?
John
Dave Simpson
>In article <02fa0539...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com>,
> Dave Simpson <dave.l.simp...@lmco.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Bill Cable wrote:
>
>> > That's what's going to be most telling during the debates.
>> > It's going to be another Kennedy/Nixon.
>>
>> I hope so. It can happen if Bush handles challenges okay.
>
El Dorado Farley wrote:
> Comparing Bush to Kennedy or reagan is wishful thinking at
> best.
I'm not doing that. I am agreeing with the view that Bush
can come across much better to people than Gore, as Kennedy
did to Nixon long ago. In that sense, the analogy is a good
one.
> By the time Gore and his people get done with this guy there
> will be very little left.
Who's people? That's an effort made from within a glass house.
If that were to happen, credit Gore's people, for Gore couldn't
do it. He lost to Kemp badly (as well as to default) in 1996.
While Kemp did nothing and couldn't be considered a "winner,"
Gore did nothing but behave as a robot, behave stupidly, use
language that made it sound as though he were speaking not to
first graders but to toddlers, and uttered one stupid sound bite
after another. Gore was worthless and insulting to intelligent
as well as decent Americans. God help his team if he does this
again. Kemp just sat there and flabbered and acted as if he
knew Gore was going to screw up, but did it himself and had one
martini (or two or three) too many prior to the debate. Gore
was an insult to us and an embarrassment to his handlers. How
so many gullible and unechical people could still be convinced
to vote for his administration for another term is amazing. It
happened. The GOP had Clinton-Gore dead and chose to commit
suicide. This is different. It's a close race, and Gore faces
someone who comes across as smarter than he is, and at least can
speak as a normal person does. Gore's team had better work hard
and quickly on coaching Gore how to win a debate in the eyes of
more than just the losers who can be convinced of anything.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote in message
>news:58oclsorqgdhupqj4...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:20:42 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><cracked_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> >news:8j5kra$tfb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics," Fallows argues,
>> >> "a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and who
>> >> leaves opponents not just beaten but brutalized."
>> >
>> >Why even have debates, gore juinior is already a loser.
>>
>> Yeah. His dad tried to dodge in 1992 and the Clinton guys just sent a
>> guy in a chicken suit to every Bush event.
>
>First a draft dodging coward sends a chicken and now the android can send a
>tree.
THat Bush dodged the draft, and went AWOL, is NOT going to be an
issue.
That he is a chicken will haunt him.
Charity - two million. Bush cheats the voters and he cheats the
charities,
That,s not right.
We deserve a President who isn't a chicken.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr
Tarver Engineering
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:59:56 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:58oclsorqgdhupqj4...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:20:42 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> ><cracked_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:8j5kra$tfb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics," Fallows argues,
> >> >> "a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and who
> >> >> leaves opponents not just beaten but brutalized."
> >> >
> >> >Why even have debates, gore juinior is already a loser.
> >>
> >> Yeah. His dad tried to dodge in 1992 and the Clinton guys just sent a
> >> guy in a chicken suit to every Bush event.
> >
> >First a draft dodging coward sends a chicken and now the android can send
a
> >tree.
>
> THat Bush dodged the draft, and went AWOL, is NOT going to be an
> issue.
That is because it is a Clintonista lie.
> That he is a chicken will haunt him.
No one cares about Clinton being a coward anymore.
Rob Borden
wrote:
> People vote FOR a candidate who sincerely KNOWS THE ISSUES the certain
> candidate speaks of, (they call it Self-Knowledge), one who has DETAILS
> on any proposition upheld to scrutiny, not just platitude and a
> shot-in-the-dark wish list.
Really? Explain Clinton getting elected twice.
OK, I will. He was better looking than his opponents. And he's very
adept at delivering a line of absolute shit. Clinton's most memorable
moments and words (his legacy) are the lies and misrepresentations he's
been involved with. He's at his most sincere when he's deceiving people.
He's never known much about issues and 8 yrs later still doesn't.
Doesn't care either. Knock the shit out of Clinton and there's just a
hat and a pair of shoes left.
Nevertheless, lots of people like Clinton and he would be a serious
candidate if he could run again. Gore doesn't have that luxury. People
don't like him. His own party members don't even like him. Gore should
be making arrangements to have his stuff moved into the White House,
instead he's worried about the making a respectable showing.
The debates will be a snooze-a-thon. Unless they get Regis Philbin &
Dennis Miller to be moderators. Then maybe someone will watch and maybe
even stay awake.
bill...@my-deja.com
> bill...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8j5kra$tfb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > cracked_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Fallows concludes.
> >
> > Great quote! Hopefully the American public will be using their
> > keen "bullshit detectors" when the debates roll around. I know Dems
> > don't have the ability to discern lies from truth, so Gore was able
> to
> > easily defeat Bradley in the Dem debates and primaries. But when
the
> > whole nation is looking, we'll see how long Gore can lie before
> > the "Clinton fatigue" transfers to him.
>
> In all fairness, I try to copy as much out of any article I post
> VERBATIM, and select not to edit content unless the article has to be
> truncated for size... so 'my guy' gets hit broadsides alot too..
It's not "broadsiding" if it's true. :-)
> BUT, we will see how much 'Clinton Fatigue', or Gore's "lying" about
> "political convenience" will have an IOTA to do with the outcome of
this
> race.
>
> People are going to come to FOCUS in this race, in Late September, and
> early October. When the two major party candidates are compared,
> IDEA-to-IDEA, Face-To-Face in debates and town forums, there aren't
> gonna be any more placards for Mr. Bush to stumble over when trying to
> re-play the cassette that is loaded into the player between his
ears...
>
> There isn't gonna BE a PLATITUDE RESPONSE that is going to work for
him
> in the instance of a Bush/Gore DEBATE.
>
> People vote FOR a candidate who sincerely KNOWS THE ISSUES the certain
> candidate speaks of, (they call it Self-Knowledge), one who has
DETAILS
> on any proposition upheld to scrutiny, not just platitude and a
> shot-in-the-dark wish list.
>
> Voters tend to shy away from the candidate who comes off like a
> programmed-by-handlers Robot, (A.K.A., a poseur) who cannot
articulate a
> non-platitude response, or think for *himself* without a "little
birdie
> or five" ;o) whispering into his ear. Bush has demonstrated the
> programming capabilities of his handlers on many a debate, the voters
> will be looking fo INSIGHT and ANSWERS, this November.
>
> Gore isn't the candidate of the millenium...but when compared to the
> 'Karaoke Kandidate', (A.K.A. George W. Bush).... he is head, shoulders
> and leg-room above the GOP's "Fine$t example".
>
> SEE YOU AT THE POLLS...... C_S
I think you'll be surprised when Bush takes on Gore in the debates.
He's not going to be a "good Democrat" like Bradley and quietly mumble
to himself as Gore spews lie after lie. He's not going to back down to
Gore like Bradley did, he's going to stand his ground. And he's going
to point out that all of the proposals you say Gore knows so much about
were stolen almost verbatum from Bush's plank after Gore saw just how
successfully they played in the polls.
Plus, people don't like Gore. He's boring. He talks to the public
like a first grade teacher. He has zero charisma. That's what's going
to be most telling during the debates. It's going to be another
Kennedy/Nixon.
--
Bill Cable - Steelers Fan & Star Wars Collector
http://www.swdrawings.com * cabl...@swdrawings.com
Visit SWDrawings.com - a whole new universe of fan art!
Akicita
--
Friends, Notice: To prevent spam, my reply-to address is deliberately wrong.
To send me email, change "cox" to "com", instead of just clicking "reply."
--
Ralph Nader might not be the most charismatic, but is so astoundingly bright
and in possession of so many facts and experiences that he'd have both of
them for dinner. They probably both know it, too.
N9NWO
: > Fallows concludes.
: >
: > Great quote! Hopefully the American public will be using their
: > keen "bullshit detectors" when the debates roll around. I know Dems
: > don't have the ability to discern lies from truth, so Gore was able
: to easily defeat Bradley in the Dem debates and primaries. But when the
: > whole nation is looking, we'll see how long Gore can lie before
: > the "Clinton fatigue" transfers to him.
:
: In all fairness, I try to copy as much out of any article I post
: VERBATIM, and select not to edit content unless the article has to be
: truncated for size... so 'my guy' gets hit broadsides alot too..
: BUT, we will see how much 'Clinton Fatigue', or Gore's "lying" about
: "political convenience" will have an IOTA to do with the outcome of this
: race.
Of course it will. It is the result of the Clinton administration
using fear to keep democrats from not voting in 1998. Now
the normal disgust that most party loyalists feel in the 6th year
of a presidency has now been delayed to this year.
: People are going to come to FOCUS in this race, in Late September, and
: early October. When the two major party candidates are compared,
: IDEA-to-IDEA, Face-To-Face in debates and town forums, there aren't
: gonna be any more placards for Mr. Bush to stumble over when trying to
: re-play the cassette that is loaded into the player between his ears...
:
: There isn't gonna BE a PLATITUDE RESPONSE that is going to work for him
: in the instance of a Bush/Gore DEBATE.
:
: People vote FOR a candidate who sincerely KNOWS THE ISSUES the certain
: candidate speaks of, (they call it Self-Knowledge), one who has DETAILS
: on any proposition upheld to scrutiny, not just platitude and a
: shot-in-the-dark wish list.
The public does not care about issues, at least on an intellectual level.
Only egg heads and policy wonks do. Presidents get elected for emotional
reasons. The person who connects with public on emotional level is the
one who usually wins.
: Voters tend to shy away from the candidate who comes off like a
: programmed-by-handlers Robot, (A.K.A., a poseur) who cannot articulate a
: non-platitude response, or think for *himself* without a "little birdie
: or five" ;o) whispering into his ear. Bush has demonstrated the
: programming capabilities of his handlers on many a debate, the voters
: will be looking fo INSIGHT and ANSWERS, this November.
:
: Gore isn't the candidate of the millenium...but when compared to the
: 'Karaoke Kandidate', (A.K.A. George W. Bush).... he is head, shoulders
: and leg-room above the GOP's "Fine$t example".
:
: SEE YOU AT THE POLLS...... C_S
Except the Junior does not excite democrats at the emotional
N9NWO
: >: Commentary: Gore again likely to go for jugular in autumn
: debate
: >
: >Well, he has to do SOMETHING drastic to help his poll
: >numbers, else he'll go down in history as a bigger loser
: >than even the Fritz and Tits ticket against Reagan in
: >1984.
: The polls don't mean anything this early. Most people won't
: focus on the election until the party conventions. After that
: start paying attention to polls.
: If I were advising Gore I'd be telling him to save his
: ammunition for later, and I suspect that's what he's doing.
Agreed. It is not worth it for conservatives to get their
hopes up. George HW Bush was down 17% but was
able to bounce because of the convention performance.
But then he did not have to deal with third party candidates
until 1992. Junior Gore has to deal with the fact that he
could not only lose to Bush but also have democrats voting
for Buchanan (unions) or Nader (progressives).
eldorad...@my-deja.com
Dave Simpson <dave.l.simp...@lmco.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Bill Cable wrote:
> > That's what's going to be most telling during the debates.
> > It's going to be another Kennedy/Nixon.
>
> I hope so. It can happen if Bush handles challenges okay.
Comparing Bush to Kennedy or reagan is wishful thinking at best. Both
were articulate, witty, and fast on their feet. Bush has yet to be let
out of his box by his handlers, and for very good reason. He is an
inarticulate man who is lost once he is put into the position of having
to go beyond a prepared script. Gore has the killer instinct, just look
what he did to Bradley. It's a mismatch. By the time Gore and his
people get done with this guy there will be very little left.
cracked_...@my-deja.com
>Subject: Re: GORE To Rip BUSH's Lungs Out In Debates
>From: Rob Borden nom...@nospam.org.invalid
>Date: 6/26/00 12:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <nomail-BDF9DA....@enews.newsguy.com>
>
>In article <8j63h1$7hb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cracked_...@my-deja.com
>wrote:
>
>> People vote FOR a candidate who sincerely KNOWS THE ISSUES the
certain
>> candidate speaks of, (they call it Self-Knowledge), one who has
DETAILS
>> on any proposition upheld to scrutiny, not just platitude and a
>> shot-in-the-dark wish list.
>
>Really? Explain Clinton getting elected twice
>OK, I will. He was better looking than his opponents. And he's very
>adept at delivering a line of absolute shit. Clinton's most memorable
>moments and words (his legacy) are the lies and misrepresentations he's
>been involved with. He's at his most sincere when he's deceiving
people.
>
BETTER LOOKING? The only thing I see that is "better-looking" is the
total economy and standard of living UPGRADE that the USA has seen since
the Clinton/Gore 1993 budget was enacted.
(With NO HELP FROM THE REPUBLIKANS, and despite their foot-dragging
attempts):o)
>He's never known much about issues and 8 yrs later still doesn't.
>Doesn't care either. Knock the shit out of Clinton and there's just a
>hat and a pair of shoes left.
That's probably saying ALOT MORE about RepubliKans than it is
Clinton/Gore,
AFTER ALL, Clinton is at 68% job approval rating, and the steadiest,
highest presidential JOB APPROVAL RATING in the HISTORY of 'these here'
United States. STILL putting your movie-star hero REAGAN to SHAME.
People don't elect a president TWICE, with the HIGHEST JOB APPROVAL IN
HISTORY if you ain't doin' something right...
>
>Nevertheless, lots of people like Clinton and he would be a serious
>candidate if he could run again. Gore doesn't have that luxury. People
>don't like him. His own party members don't even like him. Gore should
>be making arrangements to have his stuff moved into the White House,
>instead he's worried about the making a respectable showing.
IDEAS and the self-knowledge to deploy them in a POPULAR setting will
decide this race.
>
>The debates will be a snooze-a-thon. Unless they get Regis Philbin &
>Dennis Miller to be moderators. Then maybe someone will watch and maybe
>even stay awake.
I stayed up to watch Gore DESTROY that lop-eared, miniature pachyderm
Perot on LKL. I watched him overcome a 20 plus point DEFICIT against
Bill Bradley (in a primary where Gore spent 20 million, COMPARED to your
GOP Golden Calf's 68 MILLION)... I will stay up all night to watch Gore
DECIMATE Bush, in a head-to-head, question-to-question DEBATE.....
ANY QUESTIONS?
David Lentz
Dave Simpson wrote:
<snip>
> Bush should appear to have several IQ points over Gore,
> given how Gore appeared in 1996. Only the stupid would
> have fallen for endless sound bites, ut-tered ve-ry slow-ly;
> you had to be a child or an idiot to believe what Gore was
> saying, and not to have been turned off by how it was said.
With certain upper and lower limits, what do intelligence points
have to do with being President? Not a damn thing. I am quite
sure that James E. Carter was more intelligent than Harry S.
Truman. Does anybody thing that Carter was a better President?
I certainly hope not.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
mahabarbara
the certain
>: candidate speaks of, (they call it Self-Knowledge), one who
has DETAILS
>: on any proposition upheld to scrutiny, not just platitude and
a
>: shot-in-the-dark wish list.
>
Most Dems are not going to confuse Dubya's frat-boy arrogance
with
"heart," no matter how well the GOP attempts to package him.
B.
mahabarbara
>
> Barbara wrote:
>
>>The polls don't mean anything this early. Most people won't
>>focus on the election until the party conventions. After that
>>start paying attention to polls.
>
>value. Bush obviously should win in Texas this year, and
>I believe he won't take New York; Gore has that state sewn
>up, it already appears.
Yes, but as I recall in the past several elections, very often
the
person way ahead in the polls in early summer was the eventual
loser.
I have seen polls swing dramatically right up to the time of the
election. When Reagan beat Carter in 1980, for example, one week
before the election people were saying it was too close to call.
Reagan womped Carter in a TV debate right before the election,
resulting in a landslide.
In this election IMO the party faithful will stick with their
man,
but the enormous number of independent voters feel little
enthusiasm for either candidate and could go either way. IMO if
they follow the pattern of the last several elections, they will
vote for the least frightening candidate. Both Gore and Bush can
be scary in their own way, but in the end IMO more people will
decide they are comfortable with Gore.
>
>>If I were advising Gore I'd be telling him to save his
>>ammunition for later, and I suspect that's what he's doing.
>
> I doubt Gore has much, if any.
Are you kidding? There's plenty of dirt on Dubya of which the
general public is still ignorant. IMO as people learn more about
his "record" in Texas and his background as a spoiled slacker who
got bailed out by his family, they'll turn off big time.
Neither one of these guys will ever be confused with Abe Lincoln
in the character department, but if you look at his life as a
whole Gore is a Boy Scout compared to Bush. And, I think
character
will count for a lot to voters this year.
> If he offers initiatives
>in policy clearly meant to attract Nader voters, he's sunk.
> What can he do, other than present things that are paler
>imitations of Bush initatives, and call them "fairer" or
>"more humane" or whatever?
People vote for the person who scares them the least. As people
learn more about Dubya, IMO the very thought of an intellectually
lazy, aging frat boy as leader of the Free World will make voters
tremble with terror. It does me, I can tell you.
> What he needs to do is take more coaching in how to speak
>publicly, so he doesn't look like such a dunce, including
>compared to Bush.
OH MY GOD WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?????
You are clearly ignorant of the Atlantic Monthly article that
reveals Gore as the most formidible political debator in the
arena
today. I suggest you buy a copy (Gore on cover with vampire
fangs)
and read it.
At his best, Bush manages to look not too stupid.
In the fall, watch Bush play rope-a-dope to avoid debating Gore.
> Bush can't name people and places on a
>map yet he appears smarter than Gore.
????? Not to me.
<snips>
>
> In this defensive campaign (to move first fails), I think the
>only remaining thing to wonder about is the effect of the VP
>choices. The race is close enough it could be a make or break
>thing, possibly more so than the debates. Will it be played
>safely, like other things, or will Gore try for the kill? I
>wonder who would go with Bush. Will it also be safe, or maybe
>a relatively safe but interesting exercise of what amounts at
>this time to the initiative, which Bush, not Gore, possesses?
IMO the VP choices will play a marginal role. They'll both pick
somebody "safe."
>
> I don't know, for example, what would happen if Bush picked
>Christine Whitman to run as the VP.
That won't happen. Many in the GOP hate Whitman because she is
pro-choice. Also she is a very bad campaigner. (I lived in New
Jersey for most of her administration.)
> (I can't think of any good
>candidate for Gore to pick other than possibly Bradley or Nader,
>as a vote-getting move.)
I'd love it if he chose Bradley but I don't think that will
happen. Nader is already the Green Party candidate, and as much
as
I admire Nader's record as a crusader and agree with a lot of his
ideas, he doesn't have the background and qualifications to be
President. A VP should be somebody who COULD be president, worst-
case.
bill...@my-deja.com
cracked_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >He's never known much about issues and 8 yrs later still doesn't.
> >Doesn't care either. Knock the shit out of Clinton and there's just
a
> >hat and a pair of shoes left.
>
> That's probably saying ALOT MORE about RepubliKans than it is
> Clinton/Gore,
> AFTER ALL, Clinton is at 68% job approval rating, and the steadiest,
> highest presidential JOB APPROVAL RATING in the HISTORY of 'these
here'
> United States. STILL putting your movie-star hero REAGAN to SHAME.
> People don't elect a president TWICE, with the HIGHEST JOB APPROVAL
IN
> HISTORY if you ain't doin' something right...
You do when your opponent is Bob Dole.
I guess that's why his PERSONAL approval ratings are in the low-to-mid
30s, right? The American Public HATES Bill Clinton. They're content
with his job performance because of the good economic times we're in (a
product of the cylical nature of economies and sustained by Contract
with America reforms of the Republican Congress... Clinton's '93 tax
hike didn't do squat to bolster the economy or eliminate the defecit.
Any economist worth his salt will tell you the economic boom is due to
the explosion of information technology brought on by Republican
industry reforms. Clinton was just lucky to be along for the ride).
Clinton will be remembered for two things - Monica Lewinsky, and
selling our military secrets to China for campaign money.
--
Bill Cable - Steelers Fan & Star Wars Collector
http://www.swdrawings.com * cabl...@swdrawings.com
Visit SWDrawings.com - a whole new universe of fan art!
mahabarbara
>
>
>Dave Simpson wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Bush should appear to have several IQ points over Gore,
>> given how Gore appeared in 1996. Only the stupid would
>> have fallen for endless sound bites, ut-tered ve-ry slow-ly;
>> you had to be a child or an idiot to believe what Gore was
>> saying, and not to have been turned off by how it was said.
>
>With certain upper and lower limits, what do intelligence points
>have to do with being President? Not a damn thing. I am quite
>sure that James E. Carter was more intelligent than Harry S.
>Truman.
Really? *I* am not so sure. Truman was the last U.S. President
who
didn't go to college, so he lacked an intellectual polish. But
that doesn't mean he was less intelligent.
> Does anybody thing that Carter was a better President?
>I certainly hope not.
Harry was one of the all-time greats, IMO.
Comparing Bush and Gore -- it may be that in the IQ department
they are pretty equal. Their grades in school were about the
same,
as I recall. However, Gore is more focused and disciplined about
informing himself on issues, whereas Bush is intellectually lazy
and depends on his staff to instruct him on what he needs to
know.
Tarver Engineering
mahabarbara <bobrien...@scholastic.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:17f18549...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
>snip>
> I have seen polls swing dramatically right up to the time of the
> election. When Reagan beat Carter in 1980, for example, one week
> before the election people were saying it was too close to call.
> Reagan womped Carter in a TV debate right before the election,
> resulting in a landslide.
That is quite true, but none of these come from behind winners were fighting
their own President's 64% personal negatives. Clinton is hated as a person
and people already don't like gore junior. Gore's own negatives are running
close to 50% with Hillary at 52% "we would never vote for her".
Tarver Engineering
mahabarbara <bobrien...@scholastic.com.invalid> wrote in message
> David Lentz <Ro...@signfile.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Dave Simpson wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Bush should appear to have several IQ points over Gore,
> >> given how Gore appeared in 1996. Only the stupid would
> >> have fallen for endless sound bites, ut-tered ve-ry slow-ly;
> >> you had to be a child or an idiot to believe what Gore was
> >> saying, and not to have been turned off by how it was said.
> >
> >With certain upper and lower limits, what do intelligence points
> >have to do with being President? Not a damn thing. I am quite
> >sure that James E. Carter was more intelligent than Harry S.
> >Truman.
>
> Really? *I* am not so sure. Truman was the last U.S. President
> who
> didn't go to college, so he lacked an intellectual polish. But
> that doesn't mean he was less intelligent.
>
>
> > Does anybody thing that Carter was a better President?
> >I certainly hope not.
>
> Harry was one of the all-time greats, IMO.
>
> Comparing Bush and Gore -- it may be that in the IQ department
> they are pretty equal. Their grades in school were about the
> same,
You have moved one step closer to the truth barbara. Now that you are past
Denial the healing can begin.
John
Gore = $5 gasoline
eddie...@my-deja.com
The poor Shrubbies have gotten to the point where they can do nothing
more than clasp their hands over their ears and shriek: "Stop! Stop!
It's all lies!!"
The truth of the matter is Shrub is now turning into a subject for
gossip just like Clinton was several years back. Shrub's "colorful"
past (and bizarre present) is becoming the source of much scandalous
speculation. And if you doubt the effects, check the new Newsweek and
NY Daily News polls. Shrub's 10 point lead has vanished almost
overnight.
Tarver Engineering
<eddie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8j7tkb$flv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
The entire US public is on to the fact that Clinton couldn't tell the truth
if his life depended on it. That is why his personal disaproval is at 64%.
> The truth of the matter is Shrub is now turning into a subject for
> gossip just like Clinton was several years back.
Clinton and Hillary actually did the crimes and daddy Bush would have done
the Country a great favor by letting the DoJ put them in jail for bank
fraud; instead of protecting them for the election.
John
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote in message
>news:dqidlscih9de68fj7...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:59:56 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:58oclsorqgdhupqj4...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:20:42 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>> >> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> ><cracked_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:8j5kra$tfb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics," Fallows argues,
>> >> >> "a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and who
>> >> >> leaves opponents not just beaten but brutalized."
>> >> >
>> >> >Why even have debates, gore juinior is already a loser.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah. His dad tried to dodge in 1992 and the Clinton guys just sent a
>> >> guy in a chicken suit to every Bush event.
>> >
>> >First a draft dodging coward sends a chicken and now the android can send
>a
>> >tree.
>>
>> THat Bush dodged the draft, and went AWOL, is NOT going to be an
>> issue.
>
>That is because it is a Clintonista lie.
He dodged. He stopped showing up.
Which do you refute?
>
>> That he is a chicken will haunt him.
>
>No one cares about Clinton being a coward anymore.
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr
Rick Wilson
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
>
> The entire US public is on to the fact that Clinton couldn't tell the
truth
> if his life depended on it. That is why his personal disaproval is
at 64%.
Nice try.
The latest polls have Clinton's personal approval rating at 54% and his
job approval at 61%.
-Rick Wilson
eddie...@my-deja.com
nothing
> > more than clasp their hands over their ears and shriek: "Stop! Stop!
> > It's all lies!!"
>
truth
> if his life depended on it. That is why his personal disaproval is
at 64%.
And tell me, sir, what does all of this have to do with the 2000
Presidential Election? Are you on some sort of nostalgia jag here? How
are Calvin Coolidge's numbers holding up? Are they still "keeping cool
with Coolidge?"
>
> > The truth of the matter is Shrub is now turning into a subject for
> > gossip just like Clinton was several years back.
>
> Clinton and Hillary actually did the crimes and daddy Bush would have
done
> the Country a great favor by letting the DoJ put them in jail for bank
> fraud; instead of protecting them for the election.
Constantly pointing at the Clintons as a way of attempting to distract
attention away from the enormous amount of criticism being aimed at the
Shrub is hardly effective or complimentary for your candidate. So what
is your slogan for the election going to be? "He's not as bad as
Clinton?" "He's not as corrupt as the last guy?" Don't you see just how
dire your predicament really is? Shrub is now the target of the kind of
gossip and speculation Clinton was a few years back. Your "he's not as
bad as Clinton" defense is only reinforcing the impression.
The OldTimer
--
So What???? I'm gonna' vote
for GWB, regardless of what you
say. Why??? Because I want you
to have to live with a President that
you hate as much as I hate the one
we've got now. Any more questions?
The OldTimer
mahabarbara
>
>mahabarbara <bobrien...@scholastic.com.invalid> wrote in
message
>
>>snip>
>
>> I have seen polls swing dramatically right up to the time of
the
>> election. When Reagan beat Carter in 1980, for example, one
week
>> before the election people were saying it was too close to
call.
>> Reagan womped Carter in a TV debate right before the election,
>> resulting in a landslide.
>
>That is quite true, but none of these come from behind winners
were fighting
>their own President's 64% personal negatives. Clinton is hated
as a person
But a majority like the way Clinton does his job as President.
His
job approval ratings in June were anywhere between 66 percent and
52 percent favorable, depending on which poll you want to
believe.
Go to this URL for results of several polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/clintjob.htm
>and people already don't like gore junior. > Gore's own
negatives are running
>close to 50%
Current polls have Gore's favorable ratings at 45 percent,
unfavorable at 35, 20 percent undecided. For poll results go to:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2gore.htm
Bush is doing only slightly better. His favorable right now is at
50 percent and his unfavorable is 28 percent, with 22 percent
undecided. What's interesting is that both Bush's and Gore's
favorability ratings have been going down. More and more people
are disliking BOTH of them.
For Bush poll results, go to:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2bush.htm
An editorial comment from Maha: Historically, when a vice
president becomes president it is nearly always the case that the
former VP and new P's administration is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, for
better or worse, than the old P's. If Al Gore becomes President
his administration most likely will not be a continuation of Bill
Clinton's.
I well remember when Hubert Humphrey was nominated in '68; people
didn't want to vote for him because he was Lyndon Johnson's VP.
So
we ended up with Nixon. In retrospect, it's easy to see now that
Humphrey wasn't ANYTHING like Johnson, so what were people
thinking?
End of editorial comment.
>with Hillary at 52% "we would never vote for her".
Hillary Clinton is not running for president at this time.
Further, people other than rabid Clintonphobes are able to
recognize that she and Al Gore are two different people. People
who are not Clintonphobes will not base their opinion of Al Gore
on Hillary Clinton. Clintonphobes will vote against Gore no
matter
what. Hillary Clinton will have no impact on Al Gore's election
chances.
Hillary's favorability rating is 49 percent in the latest polls.
Her unfavorable is high, though, at 44 percent.
For the Hillary Clinton poll results, go to:
http://www.pollingreport.com/C.htm#Favorability
Thomas A. Bolig
> argues, "a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes
> to win, and who leaves opponents not just beaten but
> brutalized."
I have watched Gore in several debates... going back to his
flip-flop on NAFTA.
Gore debates on a high school debating team level... He counters
facts with personal insults; he presents false or misleading data
which he defends by calling all counters as 'mudslinging'...
People following such one-upmanship score-board thinking are
hardly an asset to democracy...
As I have stated before... biggest 'plus' in Bush's favor with me
is that he hasn't spent his life 'practicing' to rule the world...
Other Tom;
PS
An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance.
PPS
"The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know
anything about the subject."
-- Marcus Aurelius, Stoic philosopher,Roman Emperor from 121-180 CE
Tarver Engineering
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:37:11 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:dqidlscih9de68fj7...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:59:56 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote in
message
> >> >news:58oclsorqgdhupqj4...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:20:42 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> >> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><cracked_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:8j5kra$tfb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and
who
> >> >> >> leaves opponents not just beaten but brutalized."
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah. His dad tried to dodge in 1992 and the Clinton guys just sent
a
> >> >> guy in a chicken suit to every Bush event.
> >> >
> >> >First a draft dodging coward sends a chicken and now the android can
send
> >a
> >> >tree.
> >>
> >> THat Bush dodged the draft, and went AWOL, is NOT going to be an
> >> issue.
> >
> >That is because it is a Clintonista lie.
>
Lots of Guardsmen make up drills Goerge, especially when their job training
does not fit the available equipment.
> Which do you refute?
George W Bush joined the National Guard and served. All this without having
daddy bring him home after less than half his tour; like gore junior. Have
any of you leftists discovered why gore got an early out? Perhaps the
answer could lead to the discovery of a flaw in junior's charector; besides
the hotel thing.
Bill Bonde
"Thomas A. Bolig" wrote:
>
> >"Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics," Fallows
> > argues, "a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes
> > to win, and who leaves opponents not just beaten but
> > brutalized."
>
> I have watched Gore in several debates... going back to his
> flip-flop on NAFTA.
>
> Gore debates on a high school debating team level... He counters
> facts with personal insults; he presents false or misleading data
> which he defends by calling all counters as 'mudslinging'...
>
Would they let a high school debating team counter with insults and
false data? No. Gore debates like a usenet debate. Insults, half truths,
outright lies.
Tarver Engineering
<eddie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8j88gd$og5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39579...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> >
> > <eddie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8j7tkb$flv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <3956d...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> > > >
> > > > George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote in
> > > message
> > > > news:dqidlscih9de68fj7...@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 13:59:56 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > > > <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote
> in
> > > message
> > > > > >news:58oclsorqgdhupqj4...@4ax.com...
> > > > > >> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:20:42 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > > > >> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> ><cracked_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >> >news:8j5kra$tfb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > argues,
> > > > > >> >> "a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to
> win,
> > > and who
> > > > > >> >> leaves opponents not just beaten but brutalized."
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Yeah. His dad tried to dodge in 1992 and the Clinton guys
> just
> > > sent a
> > > > > >> guy in a chicken suit to every Bush event.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >First a draft dodging coward sends a chicken and now the
> android
> > > can send
> > > > a
> > > > > >tree.
> > > > >
> > > > > THat Bush dodged the draft, and went AWOL, is NOT going to be an
> > > > > issue.
> > > >
> > > > That is because it is a Clintonista lie.
> > >
> nothing
> > > more than clasp their hands over their ears and shriek: "Stop! Stop!
> > > It's all lies!!"
> >
> > The entire US public is on to the fact that Clinton couldn't tell the
> truth
> > if his life depended on it. That is why his personal disaproval is
> at 64%.
>
> And tell me, sir, what does all of this have to do with the 2000
> Presidential Election?
No more Clinton/gore.
> Are you on some sort of nostalgia jag here? How
> are Calvin Coolidge's numbers holding up? Are they still "keeping cool
> with Coolidge?"
You must be getting into junior's kool aid.
Tarver Engineering
Rick Wilson <ric...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8j88g2$og2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39579...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The entire US public is on to the fact that Clinton couldn't tell the
> truth
> > if his life depended on it. That is why his personal disaproval is
> at 64%.
>
Accurate data clown boy. See the current WSJ poll from this weekend;
Clinton has had a week on week drop of 2% just in June.
John
Gore = $5 gasoline
Rick Wilson
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
> mahabarbara <bobrien...@scholastic.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:17f18549...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
>
> >snip>
>
> > I have seen polls swing dramatically right up to the time of the
> > election. When Reagan beat Carter in 1980, for example, one week
> > before the election people were saying it was too close to call.
> > Reagan womped Carter in a TV debate right before the election,
> > resulting in a landslide.
>
> That is quite true, but none of these come from behind winners were
fighting
> their own President's 64% personal negatives. Clinton is hated as a
person
Nice try.
The latest polls have Clinton's personal approval rating at 54% and his
job approval at 61%.
-Rick Wilson
tHewHiZ
>In the debates Bush will rub al's nose in the fact that clinton's/gore
>conspired and got OPEC to raise oil prices to help foreign countries payback
>their debt to the US.
>
>al gore and bill clinton's OPEC scheme will backfire so that al will look
>better as a DNC scapegoat and leek truths about his elegal dealings. The DNC
>should have dumped both those losers during the impeachment.
>
>CB
>
I want some of what your smoking
Jim F.
Mary E Knadler
No matter how many times you keep saying it, he is NOT arrogant.
As you have never met him why do keep lying about it.
I like him as a person & and also where he is on the issues. Just
because the Dems & their syncophants in the press keep trying to muddy
him up it will not hurt him at all with the base as they love him &
cannot wait to vote for him.
We need to get some swing voters to see how great he is & then
he should do well.
Tarver Engineering
> In article <39576...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> >
> > mahabarbara <bobrien...@scholastic.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:17f18549...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
> >
> > >snip>
> >
> > > I have seen polls swing dramatically right up to the time of the
> > > election. When Reagan beat Carter in 1980, for example, one week
> > > before the election people were saying it was too close to call.
> > > Reagan womped Carter in a TV debate right before the election,
> > > resulting in a landslide.
> >
> > That is quite true, but none of these come from behind winners were
> fighting
> > their own President's 64% personal negatives. Clinton is hated as a
> person
>
> Nice try.
You are a jack ass trying to pass off CNN/Time as a real poll.
> http://www.pollingreport.com
>
> The latest polls have Clinton's personal approval rating at 54% and his
> job approval at 61%.
Clinton's personal approval is at 36% and his job approval is at 52%.
Fox/WSJ poll.
John
>
> -Rick Wilson
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Tarver Engineering
tHewHiZ <tHew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3957c302...@news.ionet.net...
Get you some of Algore's kool aid.
John
Gore = $5 gasoline
Rick Wilson
> > In article <39579...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The entire US public is on to the fact that Clinton couldn't tell
the
> > truth
> > > if his life depended on it. That is why his personal disaproval
is
> > at 64%.
> >
> > Nice try.
>
> Accurate data clown boy. See the current WSJ poll from this weekend;
> Clinton has had a week on week drop of 2% just in June.
Check out the poll I cited. Personal approval 54%, job approval 61%.
Mary E Knadler
<bobrien...@scholastic.com.invalid> writes:
>
>"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>>
>>mahabarbara <bobrien...@scholastic.com.invalid> wrote in
>message
>>news:17f18549...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
>>
>>>snip>
>>
>>> I have seen polls swing dramatically right up to the time of
>the
>>> election. When Reagan beat Carter in 1980, for example, one
>week
>>> before the election people were saying it was too close to
>call.
>>> Reagan womped Carter in a TV debate right before the election,
>>> resulting in a landslide.
>>
>>That is quite true, but none of these come from behind winners
>were fighting
>>their own President's 64% personal negatives. Clinton is hated
>as a person
>
>
But they are all three so much alike & lie & smear their oppenents
with so much mud that is false They refuse to run on the issues.
So we know what Gore will be like. He's just a "clone" of Bill & Hill
with exactly the same "MO".
Yuck Yuck & Yuck
Tarver Engineering
Mary E Knadler <yas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8j8hih$b6k$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Gore junior will start his push to drive down turnout soon. Bush must
resist the urge to go negative; the truth about gore is bad enough.
John
Dave Reid
>
> You are a jack ass trying to pass off CNN/Time as a real poll.
>
> > http://www.pollingreport.com
> >
> > The latest polls have Clinton's personal approval rating at 54% and his
> > job approval at 61%.
>
> Clinton's personal approval is at 36% and his job approval is at 52%.
> Fox/WSJ poll.
So what you are saying is that a poll that reenforces
your preconcieved notions is accurate, and one that doesn't
is garbage?
dave
=============================================================
Dave Reid da...@radonc.washington.edu
UW Medical Center (206)598-4536
Radiation Oncology Dept.
Seattle, WA
Rick Wilson
> > >
> > > mahabarbara <bobrien...@scholastic.com.invalid> wrote in
message
> > > news:17f18549...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
> > >
> > > >snip>
> > >
> > > > I have seen polls swing dramatically right up to the time of the
> > > > election. When Reagan beat Carter in 1980, for example, one week
> > > > before the election people were saying it was too close to call.
> > > > Reagan womped Carter in a TV debate right before the election,
> > > > resulting in a landslide.
> > >
> > > That is quite true, but none of these come from behind winners
were
> > fighting
> > > their own President's 64% personal negatives. Clinton is hated
as a
> > person
> >
>
> You are a jack ass trying to pass off CNN/Time as a real poll.
Translation: I don't like what the poll says so I'll just attack the
source it came from.
Tarver Engineering
> In article <3957b...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rick Wilson <ric...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > In article <39579...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The entire US public is on to the fact that Clinton couldn't tell
> the
> > > truth
> > > > if his life depended on it. That is why his personal disaproval
> is
> > > at 64%.
> > >
> > > Nice try.
> >
> > Accurate data clown boy. See the current WSJ poll from this weekend;
> > Clinton has had a week on week drop of 2% just in June.
>
> Check out the poll I cited. Personal approval 54%, job approval 61%.
The poll you cited was a CNN/Time poll and favors Clinton ten points from
any other poll at the URL you posted. If you intend to use CNN/Time polls
don't expect anyone to do more than laugh at you.
eddie...@my-deja.com
> > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > >
the
> > truth
> > > if his life depended on it. That is why his personal disaproval
is
> > at 64%.
> >
> > Presidential Election?
>
> No more Clinton/gore.
Constantly pointing at the Clintons as a way of attempting to pull
peoples' attention away from the enormous amount of criticism being
aimed at Shrub is hardly effective or complimentary to the interests of
your candidate. So what is your slogan for the election going to be?
"He's not as bad as Clinton?" "He's not quite as corrupt or depraved as
the last guy?"
Don't you see just how dire your predicament really is? Shrub is now
the target of the kind of gossip and speculation Clinton faced a few
years back. Your "He's not as bad as Clinton" defense only helps
reinforce the widely held impression that this is a guy with a whole
lot of colorful problems.
Mary E Knadler
>are Calvin Coolidge's numbers holding up? Are they still "keeping cool
>with Coolidge?"
>
>>
>> > gossip just like Clinton was several years back.
>>
>> Clinton and Hillary actually did the crimes and daddy Bush would
have
>done
>> the Country a great favor by letting the DoJ put them in jail for
bank
>> fraud; instead of protecting them for the election.
>
>attention away from the enormous amount of criticism being aimed at
>Shrub is hardly effective or complimentary for your candidate. So what
>is your slogan for the election going to be? "He's not as bad as
how dire your predicament really is? Shrub is now the target of the
not as bad as Clinton" defense is only reinforcing the impression.
yasmin2:
Bcause this is all coming from the Clintonistas. As Rick Lazio
knows so well....he says this is their MO.
It is all false lies. When have they EVER told the truth! If
they were not involved nobody would even bother talking about
them. But they ARE still there trying their darnest to lie
their way to power.
Mary E Knadler
<jta...@tminet.com> writes:
>
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workOMITmail.com> wrote in
message
>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:37:11 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>
>Lots of Guardsmen make up drills Goerge, especially when their job
training
>does not fit the available equipment.
>
>> Which do you refute?
>
>George W Bush joined the National Guard and served. All this without
having
>daddy bring him home after less than half his tour; like gore junior.
Have
>any of you leftists discovered why gore got an early out? Perhaps the
>answer could lead to the discovery of a flaw in junior's charector;
besides
>the hotel thing.
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>--
Yeah, I think we should put out some feelers & see if someone
will leak all Gore's records. Get someone to get them from St.
Louis. We'll put in a request & see what "Daddy" did for Al.
It works both ways, you guys....Clintonistas all.
Tarver Engineering
Dave Reid <da...@radonc.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:3957D9...@radonc.washington.edu...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >
> > You are a jack ass trying to pass off CNN/Time as a real poll.
> >
> > >
> > > The latest polls have Clinton's personal approval rating at 54% and
his
> > > job approval at 61%.
> >
> > Clinton's personal approval is at 36% and his job approval is at 52%.
> > Fox/WSJ poll.
>
> So what you are saying is that a poll that reenforces
> your preconcieved notions is accurate, and one that doesn't
> is garbage?
I am saying that out of half a dozen sets of polling numbers on the same
site he picked the most friendly to Clinton. A CNN/Time poll is hardly
non-partisan.
Tarver Engineering
> In article <3957c9ba$1...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rick Wilson <ric...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > In article <39576...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > mahabarbara <bobrien...@scholastic.com.invalid> wrote in
> message
> > > > news:17f18549...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
> > > >
> > > > >snip>
> > > >
> > > > > I have seen polls swing dramatically right up to the time of the
> > > > > election. When Reagan beat Carter in 1980, for example, one week
> > > > > before the election people were saying it was too close to call.
> > > > > Reagan womped Carter in a TV debate right before the election,
> > > > > resulting in a landslide.
> > > >
> > > > That is quite true, but none of these come from behind winners
> were
> > > fighting
> > > > their own President's 64% personal negatives. Clinton is hated
> as a
> > > person
> > >
> > > Nice try.
> >
>
> source it came from.
Actually when you bring the friendliest of 6 polls from a site out and try
to play the numbers off as representative you are at best deceptive. The
Hanoi Jane Network is anything but non-partisan and Time is just to the left
of her.
Trebor
<bobrien...@scholastic.com.invalid> wrote:
>David Lentz <Ro...@signfile.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Dave Simpson wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Bush should appear to have several IQ points over Gore,
>>> given how Gore appeared in 1996. Only the stupid would
>>> have fallen for endless sound bites, ut-tered ve-ry slow-ly;
>>> you had to be a child or an idiot to believe what Gore was
>>> saying, and not to have been turned off by how it was said.
>>
>>With certain upper and lower limits, what do intelligence points
>>have to do with being President? Not a damn thing. I am quite
>>sure that James E. Carter was more intelligent than Harry S.
>>Truman.
>
>Really? *I* am not so sure. Truman was the last U.S. President
>who
>didn't go to college, so he lacked an intellectual polish. But
>that doesn't mean he was less intelligent.
>
>
>> Does anybody thing that Carter was a better President?
>>I certainly hope not.
>
>Harry was one of the all-time greats, IMO.
>
>Comparing Bush and Gore -- it may be that in the IQ department
>they are pretty equal. Their grades in school were about the
>same,
>as I recall. However, Gore is more focused and disciplined about
>informing himself on issues, whereas Bush is intellectually lazy
>and depends on his staff to instruct him on what he needs to
>know.
Gore entered Harvard with an 1355 SAT score while Bush arrived at Yale
for undergraduate work with a 1206 SAT total. That's 150-point edge
for Gore. But probably even more importantly is Bush's inherent lack
of motivation on policy issues. He really doesn't need, or even want
to know the ins and outs of social security or trade issues or
environmental concerns - all he has to figure out is where he will get
the most money.
cheers,
Trebor
Tarver Engineering
<eddie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8j8ogk$58p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3957b...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,> > news:8j88gd$og5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <39579...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <eddie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8j7tkb$flv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > nothing
> > > > > more than clasp their hands over their ears and shriek: "Stop!
> Stop!
> > > > > It's all lies!!"
> > > >
> > > > The entire US public is on to the fact that Clinton couldn't tell
> the
> > > truth
> > > > if his life depended on it. That is why his personal disaproval
> is
> > > at 64%.
> > >
> > > And tell me, sir, what does all of this have to do with the 2000
> > > Presidential Election?
> >
>
> Constantly pointing at the Clintons as a way of attempting to pull
> peoples' attention away from the enormous amount of criticism being
> aimed at Shrub is hardly effective or complimentary to the interests of
> your candidate.
It is so much easier to bash Clinton/gore because we can use the truth. The
Clintonistas are grasping at straws in hope of finding a gusher where Ann
Richards already drilled a dry hole.
> So what is your slogan for the election going to be?
> "He's not as bad as Clinton?" "He's not quite as corrupt or depraved as
> the last guy?"
Restore Integrity to your White House with President George W Bush.
> Don't you see just how dire your predicament really is? Shrub is now
> the target of the kind of gossip and speculation Clinton faced a few
> years back. Your "He's not as bad as Clinton" defense only helps
> reinforce the widely held impression that this is a guy with a whole
> lot of colorful problems.
George W Bush is an Experianced Executive and no beta male.
John
Gore = $5 gasoline
Tarver Engineering
> message
> >> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:37:11 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> >
> >Lots of Guardsmen make up drills Goerge, especially when their job
> training
> >does not fit the available equipment.
> >
> >> Which do you refute?
> >
> >George W Bush joined the National Guard and served. All this without
> having
> >daddy bring him home after less than half his tour; like gore junior.
> Have
> >any of you leftists discovered why gore got an early out? Perhaps the
> >answer could lead to the discovery of a flaw in junior's charector;
> besides
> >the hotel thing.
> >
> >John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
>
> Yeah, I think we should put out some feelers & see if someone
> will leak all Gore's records. Get someone to get them from St.
> Louis. We'll put in a request & see what "Daddy" did for Al.
That $500,000 a year job Uncle Hammer gave Gore Senior when the Voting
Rights Act evicted him from the Senate. The sweetheart deal to pay mining
Royalties against non producing land that Uncle Hammer had Gore Senior buy
and of course close to a million dollars in Oxy stock.
These are all public record, but what is hidden?
> It works both ways, you guys....Clintonistas all.
Not every Clintonista can be like Monica and some of you are bareley earning
the name "Butt Licker".
qwerty
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote in message
news:3957a...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
>
>
> George W Bush joined the National Guard and served. All this without
having
> daddy bring him home after less than half his tour; like gore junior.
Have
> any of you leftists discovered why gore got an early out? Perhaps the
> answer could lead to the discovery of a flaw in junior's charector;
besides
> the hotel thing.
Al Gore enlisted in 1969 and was to serve till August of 1971. He was
shipped out to Vietnam in late December of 1970. He only had about 8 months
to go in his enlistment when he was shipped to Vietnam. Gore covered the
20th Engineers Brigade, based 30 miles northeast of Saigon, as it cleared
jungle and built and repaired roads and bridges in the war zone. Early
releases were not uncommon at the time, though. The 20th Engineers was
departing Vietnam, which meant the Army no longer needed a reporter assigned
to the brigade. Either way, he only left Vietnam at most 2-3 months before
his enlistment was up.
While Gore was in Vietnam, Bush was spending his time in the service
pursuing the "aviation groupies" hanging around the bars and clubs near the
base. In which his favorite activity was playing "Dead bug", where someone
would yell "Dead bug" whereupon everyone would drop to the floor, flop onto
his back, and twitch his arms and legs. The last one to hit the ground would
have to buy the next round. He would then "drink until you couldn't see
straight". Perhaps this answers questions about Smirky's character.
Tarver Engineering
<eddie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8j8rct$7fa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8j8oho$elt$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler) wrote:
> > In <8j88gd$og5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> eddie...@my-deja.com writes:
> > >
> > >In article <39579...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> <eddie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:8j7tkb$flv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >> > In article <3956d...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> > >> > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>> So what
> > >is your slogan for the election going to be? "He's not as bad as
> > >Clinton?" "He's not as corrupt as the last guy?" Don't you see just
> > how dire your predicament really is? Shrub is now the target of the
> > kind of gossip and speculation Clinton was a few years back. Your
> "he's
> > not as bad as Clinton" defense is only reinforcing the impression.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > >Before you buy.
> >
> > yasmin2:
> >
> > Bcause this is all coming from the Clintonistas. As Rick Lazio
> > knows so well....he says this is their MO.
> >
> > It is all false lies. When have they EVER told the truth! If
> > they were not involved nobody would even bother talking about
> > them. But they ARE still there trying their darnest to lie
> > their way to power.
>
> You think so? To me it looks an awful lot like the tactics the GOP
> applied in their ultimately failed attempt to diminsh Clinton. Guess
> we'll have to see how the technique fairs against the Shrub. Funny how
> what goes around comes around, eh Mary? Personally I'd say your man is
> in the process of folding up like a $5 suitcase.
What color is the sky in your world?
qwerty
> > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > mahabarbara <bobrien...@scholastic.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:17f18549...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
> > >
> > > >snip>
> > >
> > > > I have seen polls swing dramatically right up to the time of the
> > > > election. When Reagan beat Carter in 1980, for example, one week
> > > > before the election people were saying it was too close to call.
> > > > Reagan womped Carter in a TV debate right before the election,
> > > > resulting in a landslide.
> > >
> > > That is quite true, but none of these come from behind winners were
> > fighting
> > > their own President's 64% personal negatives. Clinton is hated as a
> > person
> >
> > Nice try.
>
> You are a jack ass trying to pass off CNN/Time as a real poll.
>
> >
> > The latest polls have Clinton's personal approval rating at 54% and his
> > job approval at 61%.
>
> Clinton's personal approval is at 36% and his job approval is at 52%.
> Fox/WSJ poll.
Nope, Clinton's Favorability Ratings according to Fox is 42% favorable & 51%
unfavorable. Zogby has it 50% favorable, 47% unfavorable.
Clinton's Job ratings are very good and have changed little the last 2-3
years:
NBC/Wall Street Journal 58% Approve 37% Disapprove
CNN/Time 61% Approve 33% Disapprove
Los Angeles Times 55% Approve 41% Disapprove
Fox 66% Approve 28% Disapprove
Gallup 60% Approve 36% Disapprove
Rick Wilson
> > In article <3957c9ba$1...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> > source it came from.
>
> Actually when you bring the friendliest of 6 polls from a site out
and try
> to play the numbers off as representative you are at best deceptive.
I posted the numbers from the most recent poll at the site, as I said
in my original post. Try again.
-Rick Wilson
eddie...@my-deja.com
yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler) wrote:
> In <8j88gd$og5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> eddie...@my-deja.com writes:
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <eddie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> news:8j7tkb$flv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >nothing
> >> > more than clasp their hands over their ears and shriek: "Stop!
> Stop!
> >> > It's all lies!!"
> >>
> >> The entire US public is on to the fact that Clinton couldn't tell
> the
> >truth
> >> if his life depended on it. That is why his personal disaproval is
> >at 64%.
> >
> >And tell me, sir, what does all of this have to do with the 2000
How
> >are Calvin Coolidge's numbers holding up? Are they still "keeping
cool
> >with Coolidge?"
> >
> >>
> >> > The truth of the matter is Shrub is now turning into a subject
for
> >> > gossip just like Clinton was several years back.
> >>
> >> Clinton and Hillary actually did the crimes and daddy Bush would
> have
> >done
> >> the Country a great favor by letting the DoJ put them in jail for
> bank
> >> fraud; instead of protecting them for the election.
> >
> >attention away from the enormous amount of criticism being aimed at
> >Shrub is hardly effective or complimentary for your candidate. So
what
> >is your slogan for the election going to be? "He's not as bad as
> >Clinton?" "He's not as corrupt as the last guy?" Don't you see just
> how dire your predicament really is? Shrub is now the target of the
> kind of gossip and speculation Clinton was a few years back. Your
"he's
> not as bad as Clinton" defense is only reinforcing the impression.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Bcause this is all coming from the Clintonistas. As Rick Lazio
> knows so well....he says this is their MO.
>
> It is all false lies. When have they EVER told the truth! If
> they were not involved nobody would even bother talking about
> them. But they ARE still there trying their darnest to lie
> their way to power.
You think so? To me it looks an awful lot like the tactics the GOP
applied in their ultimately failed attempt to diminsh Clinton. Guess
we'll have to see how the technique fairs against the Shrub. Funny how
what goes around comes around, eh Mary? Personally I'd say your man is
in the process of folding up like a $5 suitcase.
N9NWO
: >
: >Except the Junior does not excite democrats at the emotional
: >level. He has no heart. And democrats love to feel, to be won
: >emotionally.
:
: Most Dems are not going to confuse Dubya's frat-boy arrogance
: with "heart," no matter how well the GOP attempts to package him.
No, Barbie, they will not vote for GWB. They will vote
for Nader or Buchanan.
But Junior Gore is a disappointment to them.
Sort of a younger Bob Dole.
cracked_...@my-deja.com
journalist, but FIRST a SOLDIER, IN ACTION, and FIGHTING FOR HIS
COUNTRY.
(As were all infantrymen/journalists who captured images of the wars,
for example, just look at the photo's of the American flag-raising at
Iwo Jima). Gore served with honor and DIGNITY.
MEANWHILE.....
George W. Bush was defending TEXAS oil fields against an invasion by
Mexico or Oklahoma.....
( He was supposedly in the Texas and Arizona Air National Guard, but was
*missing* for an *entire year*., between late May 1972 and May 1973)
LittleBush supposedly left the service early, to fit a "legacy slot" at
Yale, left open for him by his equally stupid, but at least FIGHTING,
'faaaaather'.
(That's the ONLY WAY that "C" students got into institutions like YALE
and HARVARD, by the way)
TAKE A GOOD LONG LOOK AT THAT.
Trebor
<Thoma...@unisys.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> As I have stated before... biggest 'plus' in Bush's favor with me
>is that he hasn't spent his life 'practicing' to rule the world...
Isn't that just another way of saying that he's spent most of his
adult life in a drunken stupor?
cracked_...@my-deja.com
(yeah, Big difference) :
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/bush.htm
David Lentz
Trebor wrote:
<snip>
> Gore entered Harvard with an 1355 SAT score while Bush arrived at Yale
> for undergraduate work with a 1206 SAT total. That's 150-point edge
> for Gore. But probably even more importantly is Bush's inherent lack
> of motivation on policy issues. He really doesn't need, or even want
> to know the ins and outs of social security or trade issues or
> environmental concerns - all he has to figure out is where he will get
> the most money.
George W. Bush was never so stupid as to put his name on a book
as stupid as "The Earth in Balance." Bush never said that the
internal combustion engine was going to melt the polar ice caps.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Thomas A. Bolig
> He was shipped out to Vietnam in late December of 1970.
> He only had about 8 months to go in his enlistment when he
> was shipped to Vietnam.
Which proves that something was cooked up by people with power...
no one is sent overseas with less time remaining in service than it
takes to fulfill a tour of duty... "Early outs" dealt with people
who had only a few weeks/months left AFTER they returned from a tour
overseas... Provided they were needed for 'cleanup' work...
Other Tom;
PS
"... Let me explain... It's not falling down, it's a handyman's
dream; It's not tiny, it's cozy... You see, Marge, There's the
Truth and then there's the '*truth*'. "
== 'Lionel Hutch', lawyer, real-estate agent, "The Simpsons"
Thomas A. Bolig
>> me is that he hasn't spent his life 'practicing' to rule the
>> world...
>
> Isn't that just another way of saying that he's spent most of his
> adult life in a drunken stupor?
No, Troll, it doesn't.
Other Tom;
PS
"Political tags- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist,
fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth- are never basic
criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want
people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
Robert Heinlein
The OldTimer
> In article <3957b...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rick Wilson <ric...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > In article <39579...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> > > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The entire US public is on to the fact that Clinton couldn't tell
> the
> > > truth
> > > > if his life depended on it. That is why his personal disaproval
> is
> > > at 64%.
> > >
> >
> > Accurate data clown boy. See the current WSJ poll from this weekend;
> > Clinton has had a week on week drop of 2% just in June.
>
> Check out the poll I cited. Personal approval 54%, job approval 61%.
>
Does that mean he gets to stay on?
--
So What???? I'm gonna' vote
for GWB, regardless of what you
say. Why??? Because I want you
to have to live with a President that
you hate as much as I hate the one
we've got now. Any more questions?
The OldTimer
Dave Reid
>
> It is all false lies.
As oppossed to a true lie?
eddie...@my-deja.com
> > In article <8j8oho$elt$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E Knadler) wrote:
> > > In <8j88gd$og5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> eddie...@my-deja.com writes:
> > > >
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> So what
> > > >is your slogan for the election going to be? "He's not as bad as
> > > >Clinton?" "He's not as corrupt as the last guy?" Don't you see
just
> > > how dire your predicament really is? Shrub is now the target of
the
> > > kind of gossip and speculation Clinton was a few years back. Your
> > "he's
> > > not as bad as Clinton" defense is only reinforcing the impression.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bcause this is all coming from the Clintonistas. As Rick Lazio
> > > knows so well....he says this is their MO.
> > >
> > > It is all false lies. When have they EVER told the truth! If
> > > they were not involved nobody would even bother talking about
> > > them. But they ARE still there trying their darnest to lie
> > > their way to power.
> >
> > You think so? To me it looks an awful lot like the tactics the GOP
> > applied in their ultimately failed attempt to diminsh Clinton. Guess
> > we'll have to see how the technique fairs against the Shrub. Funny
how
> > what goes around comes around, eh Mary? Personally I'd say your man
is
> > in the process of folding up like a $5 suitcase.
>
Blue. Welcome to Earth, Tarver Man. Now please, step this way. We have
many scientists and technicians who are quite eager to meet you.
eddie...@my-deja.com
> > In article <3957b...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <eddie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > In article <39579...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <eddie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > And tell me, sir, what does all of this have to do with the 2000
> > > > Presidential Election?
> > >
> > > No more Clinton/gore.
> >
> > Constantly pointing at the Clintons as a way of attempting to pull
> > peoples' attention away from the enormous amount of criticism being
> > aimed at Shrub is hardly effective or complimentary to the
interests of
> > your candidate.
>
> It is so much easier to bash Clinton/gore because we can use the
truth. The
> Clintonistas are grasping at straws in hope of finding a gusher where
Ann
> Richards already drilled a dry hole.
Really? Seems to me that there are many shady dealings in Shrub's past,
dealings that will become obvious once September rolls around and the
election campaign begins in earnest. The sweetheart Texas Rangers
ballpark deal (which helped turn Shrub's $600,000 "investment" into a
windfall estimated in the 10s of millions), Shrub's draft-dodging plus
his inability to show where he was at a time when he was supposed to be
serving in the Guard, allegations of drug abuse, Funeralgate, slipshod
management of the Death Penalty during his tenure as governor of Texas,
his acceptance of large sums of campaign funds from companies he's done
business with in Texas (Example: The Wyly Brothers, administrators of
many Texas state pension funds conveniently privatized by their friend
Shrub), why the list goes on and on. Shrub's past is a regular mother
lode of scandal. Carville and the boys are going to eat his lunch and
then kick his ass.
> > So what is your slogan for the election going to be?
> > "He's not as bad as Clinton?" "He's not quite as corrupt or
depraved as
> > the last guy?"
>
> Restore Integrity to your White House with President George W Bush.
Right up there with "Reformer with Results," right? Or was that "The
Texan with Tenacity?" Nah, yours is funnier.
> > Don't you see just how dire your predicament really is? Shrub is now
> > the target of the kind of gossip and speculation Clinton faced a few
> > years back. Your "He's not as bad as Clinton" defense only helps
> > reinforce the widely held impression that this is a guy with a whole
> > lot of colorful problems.
>
> George W Bush is an Experianced Executive and no beta male.
George W. Bush is "Experianced" at being the privileged son of a family
that has been established in Washington DC for decades. From his
grandfather Prescott Bush, Senator from Connecticut, to his father the
former CIA director, and one term President, Shrub has enjoyed all the
prerequisites of power. And as his wacky past becomes more apparent to
the American public, so will the special treatment he received when the
time came for him to take responsibility for his shenanigans.
eddie...@my-deja.com
Dave Simpson <dave.l.simp...@lmco.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Eddie Bueno wrote:
>
> > Blue. Welcome to Earth, Tarver Man.
>
Of course you are. Landed somewhere in Nevada, right? 1948? Area 51?
Ever think about trying to claim some royalties from The X-Files? Seems
liked they've been ripping you off on a regular basis.
> Bush folding up like a $5 suitcase?
Stay tuned, Neptune. It's going to be the funniest show in years.
Brian Carey
> > It is so much easier to bash Clinton/gore because we can use the
> truth. The
> > Clintonistas are grasping at straws in hope of finding a gusher where
> Ann
> > Richards already drilled a dry hole.
>
> Really? Seems to me that there are many shady dealings in Shrub's past,
> dealings that will become obvious once September rolls around and the
> election campaign begins in earnest.
But people of your ilk convinced Americans 8 years ago that character
doesn't matter.
So live with it.
eddie...@my-deja.com
This coming from a devotee of the party that gave the world Richard
Nixon.
Brian Carey
> > But people of your ilk convinced Americans 8 years ago that character
> > doesn't matter.
>
> This coming from a devotee of the party that gave the world Richard
> Nixon.
Just as a point of order, there are scoundrels in both parties. The Dems
have Mel Reynolds, convicted child molestor, and of course the current
occupant in the White House.
My point was simply that I think the American people have become immune to
character assassinations (whether rightly or wrongly attempted) because
people of your ilk have convinced the American psyche that character
doesn't matter.
Thanks.
qwerty
"Thomas A. Bolig" <Thoma...@unisys.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:8ja9rh$g4l$1...@trsvr.tr.unisys.com...
> >Al Gore enlisted in 1969 and was to serve till August of 1971.
> > He was shipped out to Vietnam in late December of 1970.
> > He only had about 8 months to go in his enlistment when he
> > was shipped to Vietnam.
>
> Which proves that something was cooked up by people with power...
> no one is sent overseas with less time remaining in service than it
> takes to fulfill a tour of duty... "Early outs" dealt with people
> who had only a few weeks/months left AFTER they returned from a tour
> overseas... Provided they were needed for 'cleanup' work...
Well, Gore was originally scheduled to go to Vietnam in the Summer of 1970,
but this order was mysteriously delayed untill after the elections in
November of that year. This is the election where Gore Sr. was running for
the U.S. Senate and it's widely believed that Gore Jr. Vietnam order was
delayed by Nixon as to not give Gore Sr. a political edge in the election.
eddie...@my-deja.com
Brian Carey <car...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> eddie...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > But people of your ilk convinced Americans 8 years ago that
character
> > > doesn't matter.
> >
> > This coming from a devotee of the party that gave the world Richard
> > Nixon.
>
> Just as a point of order, there are scoundrels in both parties. The
Dems
> have Mel Reynolds, convicted child molestor, and of course the current
> occupant in the White House.
True. And the GOP has Livingston, Gingrich, and DeLay.
>
> My point was simply that I think the American people have become
immune to
> character assassinations (whether rightly or wrongly attempted)
because
> people of your ilk have convinced the American psyche that character
> doesn't matter.
Certainly goes a long ways towards explaining the GOP's willingness to
nominate someone with as checkered a past as George W. Bush. And I
guess he does owe a debt of gratitude to people of your ilk for seeming
so eager to help hide his strange and troubled history while at the
same time claiming that he is a representative of all that is virtuous
and moral. It will help make the hypocrisy all the more glaring this
fall when his true story seeps into the public consciousness.
> Thanks.
No problem.
Damien Falgoust
>> But people of your ilk convinced Americans 8 years ago that character
>> doesn't matter.
>
>This coming from a devotee of the party that gave the world Richard
>Nixon.
And the party who sent over a delegation from Congress to the White
House to tell Nixon he should resign, rather than defending the
indefensible. Unlike the modern Democratic party...
--
*****************************************
Damien Falgoust, Esq. UT Law '99
dfal...@alumni.utexas.net
http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3578/
ICQ#37487606
*****************************************
On the web page:
Law School Outlines
Debunking Conspiracy Myths
Conservative Commentary/Rants
The Usenet Conservative's Toolbox
*****************************************
Trebor
wrote:
>
>
>Trebor wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Gore entered Harvard with an 1355 SAT score while Bush arrived at Yale
>> for undergraduate work with a 1206 SAT total. That's 150-point edge
>> for Gore. But probably even more importantly is Bush's inherent lack
>> of motivation on policy issues. He really doesn't need, or even want
>> to know the ins and outs of social security or trade issues or
>> environmental concerns - all he has to figure out is where he will get
>> the most money.
>
>George W. Bush was never so stupid as to put his name on a book
>as stupid as "The Earth in Balance."
Bush has never even read a serious book, let alone written one.
> Bush never said that the
>internal combustion engine was going to melt the polar ice caps.
Then I guess he's as dumb as you are. Because last I heard, they were
both melting.
>
>David
>
>--
>qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
David Lentz
Trebor wrote:
<snip>
> >George W. Bush was never so stupid as to put his name on a book
> >as stupid as "The Earth in Balance."
>
> Bush has never even read a serious book, let alone written one.
>
> > Bush never said that the
> >internal combustion engine was going to melt the polar ice caps.
>
> Then I guess he's as dumb as you are. Because last I heard, they were
> both melting.
If George W. Bush regularly carries a copy of "The Earth in
Balance", and routinely quotes from it, by your assertion, that
Bush has never read a serious book, it means that "The Earth in
Balance" should not be taken seriously. So if Al Gore writes a
book that should not be taken seriously, but he does, does that
not also mean that Gore should not be taken seriously as a
candidate.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
mahabarbara
>
>mahabarbara <bobrien...@scholastic.com.invalid> wrote in
message
>> David Lentz <Ro...@signfile.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Dave Simpson wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> Bush should appear to have several IQ points over Gore,
>> >> given how Gore appeared in 1996. Only the stupid would
>> >> have fallen for endless sound bites, ut-tered ve-ry slow-
ly;
>> >> you had to be a child or an idiot to believe what Gore was
>> >> saying, and not to have been turned off by how it was said.
>> >
>> >With certain upper and lower limits, what do intelligence
points
>> >have to do with being President? Not a damn thing. I am
quite
>> >sure that James E. Carter was more intelligent than Harry S.
>> >Truman.
>>
>> Really? *I* am not so sure. Truman was the last U.S. President
>> who
>> didn't go to college, so he lacked an intellectual polish. But
>> that doesn't mean he was less intelligent.
>>
>>
>> > Does anybody thing that Carter was a better President?
>> >I certainly hope not.
>>
>> Harry was one of the all-time greats, IMO.
>>
>> Comparing Bush and Gore -- it may be that in the IQ department
>> they are pretty equal. Their grades in school were about the
>> same,
>
>You have moved one step closer to the truth barbara. Now that
you are past
>Denial the healing can begin.
>
Go to hell.
I always try to be objective. The fact that many of you who sold
your brains to the right wing can't recognize that is your
problem.
B., still planning to vote for Gore.
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
mahabarbara
><bobrien...@scholastic.com.invalid> writes:
>>
>>"N9NWO" <21...@gte.net> wrote:
>>>: > > "Gore is manifestly willing to lie for political
>>convenience,"
>>>: > Fallows concludes.
>>>: >
>>>: > Great quote! Hopefully the American public will be using
>>their
>>>: > keen "bullshit detectors" when the debates roll around. I
>>know Dems
>>>: > don't have the ability to discern lies from truth, so Gore
>>was able
>>>: to easily defeat Bradley in the Dem debates and primaries.
>>But when the
>>>: > whole nation is looking, we'll see how long Gore can lie
>>before
>>>: > the "Clinton fatigue" transfers to him.
>>>:
>>>: In all fairness, I try to copy as much out of any article I
>>post
>>>: VERBATIM, and select not to edit content unless the article
>>has to be
>>>: truncated for size... so 'my guy' gets hit broadsides alot
>>too..
>>>:
>>>: BUT, we will see how much 'Clinton Fatigue', or Gore's
>>"lying" about
>>>: "political convenience" will have an IOTA to do with the
>>outcome of this
>>>: race.
>>>
>>>Of course it will. It is the result of the Clinton
>>administration
>>>using fear to keep democrats from not voting in 1998. Now
>>>the normal disgust that most party loyalists feel in the 6th
>>year
>>>of a presidency has now been delayed to this year.
>>>
>>>: People are going to come to FOCUS in this race, in Late
>>September, and
>>>: early October. When the two major party candidates are
>>compared,
>>>: IDEA-to-IDEA, Face-To-Face in debates and town forums, there
>>aren't
>>>: gonna be any more placards for Mr. Bush to stumble over when
>>trying to
>>>: re-play the cassette that is loaded into the player between
>>his ears...
>>>:
>>>: There isn't gonna BE a PLATITUDE RESPONSE that is going to
>>work for him
>>>: in the instance of a Bush/Gore DEBATE.
>>>:
>>>: People vote FOR a candidate who sincerely KNOWS THE ISSUES
>>the certain
>>>: candidate speaks of, (they call it Self-Knowledge), one who
>>has DETAILS
>>>: on any proposition upheld to scrutiny, not just platitude
and
>>a
>>>: shot-in-the-dark wish list.
>>>
>>>The public does not care about issues, at least on an
>>intellectual level.
>>>Only egg heads and policy wonks do. Presidents get elected
for
>>emotional
>>>reasons. The person who connects with public on emotional
>>level is the
>>>one who usually wins.
>>>
>>>: Voters tend to shy away from the candidate who comes off
>>like a
>>>: programmed-by-handlers Robot, (A.K.A., a poseur) who cannot
>>articulate a
>>>: non-platitude response, or think for *himself* without a
>>"little birdie
>>>: or five" ;o) whispering into his ear. Bush has demonstrated
>>the
>>>: programming capabilities of his handlers on many a debate,
>>the voters
>>>: will be looking fo INSIGHT and ANSWERS, this November.
>>>:
>>>: Gore isn't the candidate of the millenium...but when
compared
>>to the
>>>: 'Karaoke Kandidate', (A.K.A. George W. Bush).... he is head,
>>shoulders
>>>: and leg-room above the GOP's "Fine$t example".
>>>:
>>>: SEE YOU AT THE POLLS...... C_S
>>>
>>>Except the Junior does not excite democrats at the emotional
>>>level. He has no heart. And democrats love to feel, to be
won
>>>emotionally.
>>
>>Most Dems are not going to confuse Dubya's frat-boy arrogance
>>with "heart," no matter how well the GOP attempts to package
him.
>>
>
>No matter how many times you keep saying it, he is NOT arrogant.
>As you have never met him why do keep lying about it.
>
>I like him as a person & and also where he is on the issues.
Just
>because the Dems & their syncophants in the press keep trying
to muddy
>him up it will not hurt him at all with the base as they love
him &
>cannot wait to vote for him.
We all know this is what you think, Mary. However, you are wrong.
Dubya is an arrogant, spoiled brat. Period, end of story.
>
>We need to get some swing voters to see how great he is & then
>he should do well.
Although I am ambivalent about Gore, I am convinced that a Bush
presidency would be the beginning of the end of this great
nation. I sincerely pray he is not elected.
B.
Trebor
wrote:
>
>
>Trebor wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >George W. Bush was never so stupid as to put his name on a book
>> >as stupid as "The Earth in Balance."
>>
>> Bush has never even read a serious book, let alone written one.
>>
>> > Bush never said that the
>> >internal combustion engine was going to melt the polar ice caps.
>>
>> Then I guess he's as dumb as you are. Because last I heard, they were
>> both melting.
>
>If George W. Bush regularly carries a copy of "The Earth in
>Balance", and routinely quotes from it,
What you mean is that his staff read the book, and they gave him the
book to carry as a prop, and told him exactly what to say. The only
thing he reads is the script they give him.
Dave Simpson
Eddie Burno wrote:
>> Don't try to hornswoggle us. We're already here!
>Of course you are. Landed somewhere in Nevada, right? [...]
More stupidity will continue to get you nowhere.
>> Bush folding up like a $5 suitcase?
>
> Stay tuned, Neptune. It's going to be the funniest show in
> years.
Well, we're waiting, because it hasn't happened yet. "It's
going to be": We all knew you were lying; thanks for the sideways
admission.
Dave Simpson
eddie...@my-deja.com
Dave the Chimp dave.l.chim...@lmco.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Eddie Bueno wrote:
>
> >> Don't try to hornswoggle us. We're already here!
>
> >Of course you are. Landed somewhere in Nevada, right? [...]
>
> More stupidity will continue to get you nowhere.
Awww, look! He deleted the post because it hurt his widdle fee-wings.
Typical thin-skinned reactionary, he can dish it out but he can't take
it. Ever notice how right-wingers travel in groups? Cowards always do.
Sequence restored:
Dave the Chimp: (Attempting to recover the upper hand in a discussion
that revolved around his drug-induced deep space origins.)
"Don't try to hornswoggle us. We're already here!"
Edward Bueno:
"Of course you are. Landed in Nevada, right? 1948? Area 51? Ever think
of trying to claim some royalties from the X-Files? Seems like they've
been ripping you off on a regular basis."
Dave had no response, except the usual nauseous whining irritant he
habitually emits.
>
> >> Bush folding up like a $5 suitcase?
> >
> > Stay tuned, Neptune. It's going to be the funniest show in
> > years.
>
> Well, we're waiting, because it hasn't happened yet. "It's
> going to be": We all knew you were lying; thanks for the sideways
> admission.
Naw Chimp. Stickin' with it, banana boy. Just because you can't see it
doesn't mean it isn't happening. Hell, you're dense as dogshit, how the
hell are you going to know what's going on? Shrub is folding up like a
$5 suitcase. It's going to be the funniest show in years. Shrub is
going to make Gerald Ford look like Henry Kissinger by the time he gets
done flopping around. And the dirt the Dems got on Shrub could max out
a landfill. By the time November rolls around the name George W Bush
will be nothing more than the punchline to a million jokes.
Eric da Red
>> truth. The
>> > Clintonistas are grasping at straws in hope of finding a gusher where
>> Ann
>> > Richards already drilled a dry hole.
>>
>> Really? Seems to me that there are many shady dealings in Shrub's past,
>> dealings that will become obvious once September rolls around and the
>> election campaign begins in earnest.
>But people of your ilk convinced Americans 8 years ago that character
>doesn't matter.
>
>So live with it.
If the GOP was really serious about the "character matters" slogan, they
would have nominated someone with character.
They didn't.
We all had to live with it.
--
Useful Flame Of The Week: "[The USA] already is a bilingual nation.
There's people like you who talk out their ass and there's the rest of
us." -- Neutrodyne
Bill Boyd
The 20th Eng. Bde was inactivated September 20, 1971. Al Gore returned
in May of 1971. That is 4 months
earlier than his unit and 7-8 months before his enlistment was over.
What gives? You have some explaining to do. Get your story straight
because his Vietnam war store is well documented in the Military
newsgroups.
He got a short tour, first by delaying his departure and then again by
leaving early. That is how he only had to serve in Vietnam for 4 1/2
months.
qwerty wrote:
>
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote in message
> news:3957a...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> >
> >
> > George W Bush joined the National Guard and served. All this without
> having
> > daddy bring him home after less than half his tour; like gore junior.
> Have
> > any of you leftists discovered why gore got an early out? Perhaps the
> > answer could lead to the discovery of a flaw in junior's charector;
> besides
> > the hotel thing.
>
> Al Gore enlisted in 1969 and was to serve till August of 1971. He was
> shipped out to Vietnam in late December of 1970. He only had about 8 months
> to go in his enlistment when he was shipped to Vietnam. Gore covered the
> 20th Engineers Brigade, based 30 miles northeast of Saigon, as it cleared
> jungle and built and repaired roads and bridges in the war zone. Early
> releases were not uncommon at the time, though. The 20th Engineers was
> departing Vietnam, which meant the Army no longer needed a reporter assigned
> to the brigade. Either way, he only left Vietnam at most 2-3 months before
> his enlistment was up.
>
Bill Boyd
eddie...@my-deja.com
Bill Boyd <bb...@nue.net> wrote:
> http://www.bragg.army.mil/20eng/20eng/CMD/history.htm
> The 20th Eng. Bde was inactivated September 20, 1971. Al Gore returned
> in May of 1971. That is 4 months
> earlier than his unit and 7-8 months before his enlistment was over.
> What gives? You have some explaining to do. Get your story straight
> because his Vietnam war store is well documented in the Military
> newsgroups.
>
> He got a short tour, first by delaying his departure and then again by
> leaving early. That is how he only had to serve in Vietnam for 4 1/2
> months.
That's 4 1/2 months more than Shrub. And at least he showed up when
ordered to, unlike AWOL Bush.