Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Furball on October 02, 2004, 06:59:32 AM
-
From what i saw of the debate between bush and kerry..
Bush got annihilated, he looked stupid, lacked knowledge, sincerity and above all it looked like he lacked confidence in a debate.
It is the first time i have heard Kerry speak, he seemed basically the opposite of above, he was very impressive.
-
Please be sure to vote in the November election.
:cool:
-
As one who appreciates fine public speaking I have to agree. I normally cant stand to watch Bush speeches and this "debate" was even more painful.
Yet while Kerry is obviously the superior speaker of the two I simply do not trust a word of what he says now nor do I belive that he said anything substantial regarding policy Thursday night.
Too bad, because I'm pretty sick of both of them.. Where are the real leaders?
-
Ever thought about running yourself Grunherz? You are the most active political debater on this board if im not mistaken :)
-
I could never be a politican. :)
-
Originally posted by Furball
From what i saw of the debate between bush and kerry..
Bush got annihilated, he looked stupid, lacked knowledge, sincerity and above all it looked like he lacked confidence in a debate.
It is the first time i have heard Kerry speak, he seemed basically the opposite of above, he was very impressive.
Did you have the sound off? You didn't listen to Kerry's erroneous facts?
If we're going to elect a President just on the basis of his appearance let's get Pam Anderson in there. She's over 35.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I could never be a politican. :)
Why not?
-
If we're going to elect a President just on the basis of his appearance let's get Pam Anderson in there. She's over 35.
She's Canadian ;)
-
Originally posted by pugg666
She's Canadian ;)
Dang it!
What about Demi Moore?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
If we're going to elect a President just on the basis of his appearance let's get Pam Anderson in there. She's over 35.
Just giving my un-biased opinion, some like to see what it is like from a neutrals perspective. I am not trying to say who you should vote for.
If you americans like this sort of thing, you ever get to see Prime Ministers Questions over there? Every wednesday the opposition parties get to ask the prime minister questions on pretty much all current events. I love watching it.
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page306.asp
-
I would have to agree with most opinions that Kerry did a much better job at articulating and speaking during the speech. I really thought the republicans were gonna train bush well enough to handle this but they def. slipped up. Although we should all stop calling it a debate because it wasnt, hell they couldnt even talk to each other.
SKUZZY FOR PRESIDENT 2008 :aok
-
Originally posted by Furball
Just giving my un-biased opinion, some like to see what it is like from a neutrals perspective. I am not trying to say who you should vote for.
If you americans like this sort of thing, you ever get to see Prime Ministers Questions over there? Every wednesday the opposition parties get to ask the prime minister questions on pretty much all current events. I love watching it.
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page306.asp
It's one of the great aspects of UK democracy. Unfortunately Tony has succeeeded in reducing the number of appearances he has to make and the number of questions he has to answer.
Even Maggie didn't dare try that, though to be fair there weren't many who could face up to the old girl across the floor of the chamber.
-
I would agree with furball. But, analysists say who "wins or loses" the questions is immaterial. It's the candidate who can appear more authentically human when talking in front of a TV that usually gets the most in terms of votes out of a presidential debate.
-
Dang it!
What about Demi Moore?
Hell yes, I'd vote for her :D
-
This is going to be the worst election ever.
I may be a Republican, but I don't want to vote for Bush.
Kerry is ok, but I've seen better.
How is Nader and Perot doing?
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
This is going to be the worst election ever.
I may be a Republican, but I don't want to vote for Bush.
Kerry is ok, but I've seen better.
How is Nader and Perot doing?
No chit
One has the charisma of a wet bowling ball and the other has the communication skills of a mongoloid chimp.
-
suave... I would agree but the analysts don't go far enough. it is not only "who looks the more authenticaly human" but who looks the least like a politician and more like a favorite uncle.
kerrie looks like a $1000 a haircut liberal politician. he looks that way because he is. I don't think he can remake that image in a month or so... I don't think he even knows how.
lazs
-
He doesn't have to. It's only a liability to people like you, who would rather vote for their favorite uncle.
-
To be honest, I didn't think Bush's poor show was due to lack of speaking ability. It seemed to me that it was due to not knowing what he was talking about, and having nothing to say or respond with. Being coherent and articulate is not just a matter of speaking ability. It is also a matter of being intelligent and knowledgable and having an organized mind--when you have those, the speech comes naturally. Reagan was a good Prez for this reason IMO. Happens to me too--when I'm doing a brief, if I'm winging it, I fumble and make an bellybutton of myself. When I know what I'm talking about it comes out great. Has nothing to do with my "speaking ability", which is nothing special.
Bush was speaking fine when he had a point to make--honestly I don't think his speaking ability was the disaster everyone is making it out to be. It was when he _didn't_ have a point that it was painful to watch. Kerry seemed to answer all the arguments, and when it was Bush's turn he just repeated the same stuff again. More than ever he sounded like a scripted puppet--given a few lines to start with, but can't think up any responses to fresh positions.
-
I try to stay away from these napalm-spewing threads on politics because no-one actually discusses anything. Instead, they are mostly a conduit for the misinformed to dispense misinformation back and forth at light speed to exponentially expand the largest voting block in America: Misinformed people with the right to mark a ballot.
Half of the registered voters are below average intelligence and no other special interest group in the nation has that kind of influence. Effectively courting the stupid is an important part of any political campaign.
Now, you'd think this would be easy since the target voter isn't very bright, but it's harder and more sophisticated than one might imagine. First, random distribution implies that half of all the people attending a rally are stupid. How does the politician appeal to them and still appeal to the other half who possess above-average intelligence and a have a particular issue of importance?
Obviously, that was a trick question because it isn't necessary to appeal to anyone at a rally. Both stupid and above average attendees are already supporters so the candidate only needs to be propped up on stage like a washed-up rock band from the 1970's. Just play the same old songs (or say the same old things) at the right time and the fans will cheer and tell all their friends how lucky they were to see them in person. There was a 'connection.'
You wouldn't go see a band in concert unless you were a fan, or were trying to get into the panties of your date. If you were already a fan, you likely came away saying, "The band was, like, you know, so good and, like, they really rocked... dude." And if you did get into those panties after the concert, you became a 'hardcore' fan.
The only thing the candidate needs to do is have 1 or 2 fresh sounds bites for the 6 p.m. news handed to him on a 3 x 5 card before the opening act finishes. These sound bites should always appeal to the stupid so the sound bite contains loud whooping and hollering.
Now, I need to bring up an important aspect about the female vote. Some will argue that the female demographic group is larger than the stupid demographic group. Well, an interesting dynamic comes into effect when considering trending the female vote. Half are in the stupid group to start with and a major factor for both stupid and non-stupid women is the 'would I do him... or the other guy' question. Look back at the winners and losers since the televised campaigns and you can easily see the pattern. The winner didn't have to a hunk, he just had to be more 'doable' than the opponent. Since presidential candidates continue to be men, only a small percentage of men (except for San Francisco area residents and La-7 pilots) use this as part of their decision-making process.
The most powerful method to recruit the stupid is to establish a core group of internet losers with no life... and government employees. I know that seemed a little redundant, but government employees are key players since they are well positioned and experienced at disseminating nonsense in mass quantities, comfortable at doing simple, repetitive and mundane tasks, yet remarkably believe that they are doing something of high importance.
Some government employee clusters areas have almost 90% concentration of stupid demographics. State driver licensing departments have been observed with almost 100% saturation.
Current trends indicate an almost 50-50 split (liberal vs. conservative) in stupid government employees. In years past, most were liberal, but this has changed since approximately 72.8% of all people in the U.S. are now employed as Homeland Security airport screeners.
Interestingly, some government employees who are sucking taxpayers dry spend enormous amounts of time sitting their huge taxpayer-fed rear on a stressed out, taxpayer-paid chair at their taxpayer-paid desk, using a taxpayer-paid computer during their taxpayer-paid day to post thousands of messages to internet bulletin boards railing on and on about other 'socialist' countries.
These types are prime candidates to exploit as misinformation specialists. They can relentlessly spam bulletin boards for, or against, a candidate at no cost to the candidate. They are referred to as SZZ's (Stupid Zombie Zealots) and are an instrumental part of modern campaigns.
End of Part I
-
How many times did this happen?:
Bush: "Jim - let me have an extension, I think it's only fair that I be able to comment on something my opponent said."
Jim: "Okay."
Bush: "Uhmm.........."
-
lol Rolex.... That was nuts! I loved it.
:rofl
-
so rolex... intelligence makes for the best voters? A candidate chosen by the most inteligent voters is the best thing for America?
I find that academics and city dwellers tend to form support groups that keep out all information that would weaken their preconcieved positions. Those who would stray from lioberal socialist conversations and ideals are ostracized and deprived of the company and privilige these closed societies control.... media "documentaries" like michell moores are showered with praise as are anti second Amendment works like "the arming of America" while consevative views are shunned or stillborn.
This is still the case allthough it is changing somewhat.
lazs
-
Anyone who praises anything Michael Moore automatically forfeits any claim to intelligence.
-
Kerry looked better in the debate. For people didn't no any better, it looks like he won hands down. He didn't win hands down though. The DNC even says it was a draw.
For others, Kerry was just being a pathalogical lier again, while looking convincing doing it. It would take me some time, but I could point out how nearly everything Kerry said was a flat out lie.
Americans ( according to a gallup poll) still liked Bush more and felt he was the stronger leader ( by a huge margin) was more believable AND did better on the issues.
So basically Bush won on any point that matters. Kerry wins on appearence for that debate.
This is exactly what I was saying just after the debate. Kerry spoke well and that's about it.
-
Just giving my un-biased opinion, some like to see what it is like from a neutrals perspective
ummm, you're a long way from neutral. You liberal leanings are well established on this board.
in spite of that, I agree that Kerry won by a wide margin on style points. Now, if he only made sense and told the truth, he might actually be a "viable" candidate.
-
Originally posted by Steve
ummm, you're a long way from neutral. You liberal leanings are well established on this board.
in spite of that, I agree that Kerry won by a wide margin on style points. Now, if he only made sense and told the truth, he might actually be a "viable" candidate.
i do not have a political leaning, i know very little of the difference between the groups, i have never voted in my life and i was just sharing my views on what i saw/heard.
If anything i would say that Britain is way too liberal, justice is a joke here and sentencing needs to be made much harsher, the NHS nearly killed me so i pretty much hate it (although i agree its good to have a free healthcare system for those that cannot afford private healthcare) and i agree that those persons that can prove they are responsible enough, should be allowed guns in their homes - and should be able to use those guns to protect themselves if need be without being prosecuted such as it is now.
Does that make me a liberal? or what am i?
-
furball... I would call you a moderate conservative... your countrymen would call you a right wing whacko just to the right fo ghengis khan.
lazs
-
Well if you don't want to vote for either of them vote for somebody, anybody, that you agree with. Myself I'm voting for the libertarian candidate who will be on the ballot here in TX. Vote for a third party, we need one.
No they won't win this time, but it will make them stronger for next time, and it will send a message to the other two parties if a third party has a strong showing this time.
Besides I really think that kerry and bush are so much alike, even if kerry does get elected it will be like bush was re-elected.
-
Kerry shifted his views and positions so many times I think he may have shifted himself into another dimension. From what I could tell he never really had a solid platform. He brought up Vietnam, obviously, and he seems to be sticking to his campaign promise of "I'm not Bush."
From where I stand, he did not and has not stated a clear platform. He has shifted around with public opinion to ensure he looks better than Bush. Bush sticks to his guns...whether that is good or bad it's hard to tell.
Voting records matter...not military records. I don't like the fact that Kerry was blaming Bush for things that he himself voted against when the ballots came up on the Senate floor. I bet if Kerry had spent more time during this campaign talking about his plan for America instead of his military record in Vietnam, he probably could be father ahead of Bush in the opinion polls.
This will be my first ever presidential election. I am still unsure of who I want to vote for, but right now Kerry is spinning so fast I think he may take off and dance across stage like a top. I hope in the next debate he actually finds a platform and plunks his pampered bellybutton on it.
This is getting tiresome...
-
Kerry did look better style wise.
I was amused to see Kerry critisize Bush repeatedly for not getting enough allies involved in Iraq, then critisize Bush for not going it alone in talks with North Korea. I was also amused to see him make an underhanded acusation of Bush outsourcing jobs, then bashing him for not outsoursing jobs to the french and germans for reconstrucion in Iraq.
Kerry tried to affix blame to Bush for North Korea's nuke wepons program, when their program was precipitated by Clintons atomic energy sharing initative with North Korea. Then he later suggested the same tactic Clinton used with North Korea was what he would like the opportunity to do with Iran.
Kerry claimed he would have a forgien policy in the tradition of Regan, when in reality he worked aginst Regan's foreigh policy in congress. While Regan was deploying missles in europe and spending the USSR under the table, Kerry was pushing for a nuclear freeze.
Kerry continued to claim 200 Billion sent to Iraq when that figure includes Afganistan, and the true figure is 124 Billion for Iraq. Not to mention that allocation of funds hasnt all been used yet. Thats just stuff I observed watching live.
Of course with the moderator only asking Bush to explain and defend his policies, and asking Kerry what he would have done differelty, you would expect Kerry to look much better. Gee, its not as if Kerry has a 20 year record in the senate establishing his policies that should be questioned.
-
I love it. I really do. Let me paraphrase:-
although, having watched the debate, Kerry appeared to have won he actually lost in every way that mattered.
Thank You Nuke. I mean it.
P.S. I realize the nuance you were actually trying to achieve (although i don't necessaarily agree with it). I am pulling a dirty political trick of removing any shading from your statement. I might start calling you a flip flopper next.
-
Originally posted by niknak
I love it. I really do. Let me paraphrase:-
although, having watched the debate, Kerry appeared to have won he actually lost in every way that mattered.
Thank You Nuke. I mean it.
P.S. I realize the nuance you were actually trying to achieve (although i don't necessaarily agree with it). I am pulling a dirty political trick of removing any shading from your statement. I might start calling you a flip flopper next.
Gallup poll after debate kind of backs up what I was saying.
John Kerry won the debate Thursday night, 53% to 37%, according to a random sample of 615 registered voters who watched the event. Almost half of the viewers said they felt more favorable about the senator because of the debate, and 60% said Kerry expressed himself more clearly than did President Bush. Despite the positive assessment, viewers said they favored Bush in handling the war in Iraq and serving as commander in chief, little changed from opinions expressed before the debate. And a majority of viewers said it was Bush who better demonstrated he is tough enough for the job.
1. Expressed himself more clearly: Kerry 60% Bush 32%
2. Had a good understanding of the issues Kerry 41% Bush 41%
3. Agreed with you more on the issues you care about: Bush 49% Kerry 46%
4. Was more believable: Bush 50% Kerry 45%
5. Was more likable: Bush 48% Kerry 41%
6. Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job: Bush 54% Kerry 37%
Gallup.com (http://gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13237)
As you can see by the poll and the Gallup analysis of the results, my point is backed up. I made the point here right after the debate ended that Kerry mearly came off as the better speaker, and nothing else. I nailed it and it was easy to see coming.
On this issues related to the subject of the debate, Bush won every one of them. Kerry had the better manicure and spoke better. Okay, Kerry for President!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
furball... I would call you a moderate conservative... your countrymen would call you a right wing whacko just to the right fo ghengis khan.
lazs
No they'd just think he was typical Tory. While the US does seem more right wing to most of us it's not that much more right wing. Plus not everything translates anyway: some issues that are right/left in the US aren't issues at all in the UK (e.g. abortion).
-
...the NHS nearly killed me so i pretty much hate it...
Explain, please. Not very specific. You hate the staff, the system, the food... all three?
My girlfriend is a nurse on a renal ward, I'm interested in your views.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Explain, please. Not very specific. You hate the staff, the system, the food... all three?
The staff are nice. The system sucks, there are too few nurses to patients, the wards are dirty and over crowded, the doctors have too many patients to see and it is all a disorganised mess. Oh and i was nil by mouth for a good 3 or 4 days (so i cant really comment on the food - but what i did have was barely edible.) while they ****ed about delaying my operation, which nearly killed me (would have killed me they found out later - i changed to private ward, had operation same day, if they had left it one more day theres a good chance i would have died).
I got sent in with appendicitis (doctor sent covering note), they left it for 3 weeks, told my family it was all kinds of crap including liver trouble, cancer, gall stones, gastroentiritis + many more i cant remember. While all the poison from my appendix was leaking into my body, after the 3 weeks they decided to do an endoscope? (small camera in belly button) to see what was wrong, once they did that they finally realised it was my appendix, but by this time my gut was full of poison and they had to cut me open, take it all out and clean it.
Went into hospital weighing about 11 stone, came out under 8 stone (mostly due to all the un-necessary nil by mouth time. i was 18 years old at time, 6 feet tall).
At one point they sent me to another local hospital to get an MRI? scan. They paid a taxi to take me there, wait outside while i had the scan, then take me back to the original hospital. This cost about £60 or so and one week after the scan the ****ers had lost the results.
That is why i hate the NHS, it is nothing better than a last resort for those that cannot afford better.
-
furball... under our syustem and with the right ambulance chaser like the guy running with kerrie..... you should get about 10 million dollars for the pain and suffering caused by such incompetence.
lazs
-
All I can say is that I'm glad you pulled through. It's a good job you were young, fit and heathy going in there. Someone older might not have made it.
They are understaffed, BTW. No doubt about that - I get told that often by girlfriend. But it is better than the American system by a long shot.
Personally, the French system seems to be the most effective. Their hospitals are clean and well run - but they do have to pay for it through higher taxation and a kind of compulsary public medical insurance (IIRC).
-
Originally posted by Dowding
All I can say is that I'm glad you pulled through. It's a good job you were young, fit and heathy going in there. Someone older might not have made it.
They are understaffed, BTW. No doubt about that - I get told that often by girlfriend. But it is better than the American system by a long shot.
Personally, the French system seems to be the most effective. Their hospitals are clean and well run - but they do have to pay for it through higher taxation and a kind of compulsary public medical insurance (IIRC).
Not to mention that tens of thousands of old french citizens never die due to the heat.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
But it is better than the American system by a long shot.
Ok, how? In fact how wold you know?
-
i pity you if it is.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Not to mention that tens of thousands of old french citizens never die due to the heat.
Coming from a sensitive person like you see this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132687&pagenumber=2)
I find this very nice.
What did happen to your brain ? it melted ?