Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Debate Talkback!

yeh. by kojiro	Oct 3rd, 2000 10:21:58 PM
I'm a Gore man myself. Partisanship aside Bush is just an idiot. And I'm not just saying that, his grades in school were the same as mine so there's no wa y he got into Yale without a little boost from daddy.
Could it be...? by DearGodMySpleen	Oct 3rd, 2000 10:22:48 PM
Kneel before Zod...I'm first (I think). Anyway, Gore came off as his usual, arrogant self who wants to take even more money out of your paycheck because he thinks the government knows what's best for you. I'm still casting my vote for Bush. He comes off as more of a leader and most importantly, he made the point that tax money belongs to THE PEOPLE, not the federal government.
wait a minnit... by DearGodMySpleen	Oct 3rd, 2000 10:25:47 PM
Ok, I'm third (and possibly fourth)...Caradoc, you should also realize that Gore's college grades were just as mediocre (and possibly worse) than Dubya's. In fact, I seem to remember reading that he was kicked out of at least one college for subpar grades.
yadda yadda yadda by Pizza The Hut	Oct 3rd, 2000 10:32:32 PM
I liked Al Gore better. He looked to be more believable, more in charge, more honest, more of a solid rock than I ever remember seeing him in the past. Something about Bush just scares the crap out of me, like he has an itchy trigger finger or something. Bush acts more unsure of himself, and just downright bizarre at times, not like someone I'd want representing the country. I'd rather have Gore than Bush... Well... at least in this case!
gotta go with Gore by Kubrick's Rube	Oct 3rd, 2000 10:37:32 PM
Here's the thing about Bush's huge tax cut. Aside from the fact of the vast majority of the cash going to the richest few, a point Gore made clear again and again, the plan (as well as Bush's healthcare and Social Security plans) is built on the idea that the economy is good now. Bush leaves no room for the possibility of rough economic times ahead, which based on the cycle this country has seen for 200 years, should hit within the decade. Bush wants to give people a choice with their money. It sounds nice, but the reality is, half the people will (by the law of averages) make bad choices, and Bush's plans do not care. Gore is not about giving the money to the government; he's about protecting the money so important things like Soc Sec do not dwindle or disappear in bad investments and so doctors can make choices about the care people need even if the drug companies and insurance companies deem these choices fisally bad for big businesses. Gore's plans are fair for all and, possibly more importantly, more feasible than Bush's plans in the long run. (And don't get me started on the social issues or the debacle that would be school vouchers.)
Vote Bush & Dick! by throwaway	Oct 3rd, 2000 10:41:58 PM
Sure, get hung up on mispronounciations, or some other such minutia, but the fact remains that Bush\Cheney have the experience and leadership skills in place to continue to build the country for the next 4\8 years. We are all education\environment\technolo gy oriented, so lipservice means nada! The question is, WHEN the bill trying to tax your meaty little fingers every time you purchase your porn or other sundries online, who will snatch it like a jumbo popcorn, and who will recogize it as a deathblow to the new economy. Bush has done a great job in Texas, and that will translate to the nation. Stop focusing on the facade, and look to the issues that will truly effect your future. "There is no legal authority" indeed. Choke on those words, and go invent something else useful, like fire or the wheel.
Bush didn't scratch himself by DaveDe	Oct 3rd, 2000 10:43:15 PM
The perception is going to be that Bush won this debate. Well, all Bush had to do was not come off as dumb as people think he is and he would be considered the winner and he did that. As for Gore wanting to take more of your money. He doesn't want to take more of money if you make less then a million dollars a year. If your just your average hardworking person, your money is fine. Bush's plan of letting US invest our own money isn't the greatest. You certainly have a better chance of making more then the government would give you. But you also have the risk of losing it all and working as a greeter in wal mart when your 80. I'm not to good at saving or investing. If the government gave me more of my money I'd just by dvd's with it. So I much prefer the government take a little bit of it and give it back to me when I'm 65 so I don't have to eat catfood and sell all my Criterion Collections.
Gore all the way! by Rindain	Oct 3rd, 2000 10:44:34 PM
Bush really got a new sshole torn tonight. Blunders, mispronunciations, repitition, obvious nervousness...not to mention his story about how the woman ask him if he would let her down again... :-) Dubya's new campaign slogan should be "GW Bush...How dumb is too* dumb?"
I just wish Pat Paulson was still alive. by Uncapie	Oct 3rd, 2000 10:45:11 PM
I'd vote for him.
Hmm... by The Observer	Oct 3rd, 2000 10:51:29 PM
I do not like Gore. I do not like Bush. I am very displeased with this whole ordeal.
What about Nader or Browne? by DaMENACE	Oct 3rd, 2000 10:56:11 PM
This country is pathetic. We were founded by rich aristocracy and are rule by the upper class and we perpetuate this! Why are the other party's candidates not allowed to speak at the debate?? Why does the media never cover them? Is it because we don't care? Do you really care about medicare and abortion? What about making this country truly ruled by and for the people, instead of by and for the people in power. There really is no difference between Democrat and Republicans because they run the show. They control this country so well that most will not even vote for anyone other than the two parties that already control this country. Parties run by the rich upper class that want to stay rich and keep the masses dumb and voting for them. Ever wonder why education in this country sucks? Its in their best intrest to keep us as dumb consumers of their supporters goods. Screw them! I say Ventura for President! Anything is better than the status quo.
You know, Jessica Alba made some good points... by Soundcow	Oct 3rd, 2000 10:59:11 PM
...about why I was right to not watch the debates. And she accentuated them so well with those big beautiful lips of hers.
More choices. by norrinradd76	Oct 3rd, 2000 10:59:29 PM
To quote Homer Simpson... " These candidate's make me want to vomit in terror". What really disturbs me about the debates is how they do not allow third or fourth party candidates in. I'm not saying that third or fourth party candiates are the best, but I want to hear what they have to say, too.
I hereby announce that I am running for the position of Presiden by Miracleman	Oct 3rd, 2000 11:02:52 PM
I am representing a new party called the Kimota Party, which favors the cutting of movie ticket prices, the reduction of Blockbuster movie rental prices, and the organization of a new motion picture rating system headed by Roger Ebert and that guy who runs the Slurpee stand 3 blocks from my house. On top of that, I will also make nude beaches legal for hot chicks(no fat chicks and flabby dudes!), so that they may frolic completely in the buff and enjoy the newfound attention from beach bums and surfer dudes alike. I promise that if you vote for me, America, you will be BEGGING me four years from now to run for another term. I urge you to cast your vote at participating Cinnabons, White Castle, and Dollar Tree locations nationwide! www.drivemehomegrandma.com
Mr. Hutt says Gore 'more honest'... by mr stay puft	Oct 3rd, 2000 11:02:56 PM
I say 'than WHAT?' PLEASE don't get into a debate of which candidate is 'more honest'. You really don't want to go there if you are a Gore supporter. Regardless, the whole race is simply about responsibility and authority. It is really about the people vs. the powerful; but not exactly the way the Veep paints it. Do you want to take responsibility for your actions and have the authority to make your own decisions; or do you want Government to take the responsibility and make decisions for you? The people vs. the powerful (Government). I'll take the people every time.
Gore is a whore! by lobcy	Oct 3rd, 2000 11:04:29 PM
I have never been affiliated with either party, but I can see Bush as more of a leader than Gore. I for one remember how much I hated Tipper(Al's wifes' decisions affect his image in my eyes) when she wanted to label music. What a dumb fucking idea! Did everyone forget this? And let's not forget Al's "inventing" of the internet. Or the fact that his only purpose as VP was to hold Clinton's dick while interns sucked the snake venom out of it. What really boggles my mind is that the Democrats say that big money is behind the Republicans. What the fuck is the entertainment industry? People also always bring up Bush's history with drugs. Gore was a big time Opium smoker. I guess if you are a liberal, who is supported by all media it is cool to use drugs. Vote for Bush. Get those fucking dishonest liberal bitches out of the White House!
Anything's better than the status quo? by Kubrick's Rube	Oct 3rd, 2000 11:05:36 PM
I'm sorry, but there are things worse than the status quo, such as a regression. I happen to like Gore, but even if I thought he'd be ineffectual, I also think Bush's plans are dangerous and wrong-headed, and I'd take an absentee father over an abusive father anyday. When the status quo is a good economy, a woman's right to choose, and peace (got my fingers crossed on that one, Israel/Palestine), I'll take the status quo. Yes, I want to build on this with healthcare, Soc Sec, etc., but I think Gore is the only viable candidate to do that. Nader isn't bad, but even he agrees that Gore is better than Bush. I hope Nader supporters realize that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush and instead vote for Gore and not tip the scales in favor of the candidate they like least.
Strange debate by swavill	Oct 3rd, 2000 11:12:03 PM
First off let me say I wouldn't vote Republican if they offered to cut me a personal check. That having been said I'm afraid our erstwhile governor George W. helped himself more than Al Gore did. Before tonight I would have bet that Gore would have shredded Bush in a debate. While he did come off as being the more knowledgeable and experienced candidate. Most people knew that going in. These televised debates are primarily for the benefit of the undecided voters. Most informed people have already made a decision one way or the other. But there are a lot of voters out there in the middle who use these debates to basically decide which man they like the most. Gore got off on the wrong foot right from the start by ignoring the first question and instead giving us a live campaign commercial. Bush very easily took advantage of this and looked smooth early in the debate. Gore began to counter with numbers and statistics from Bush's plans which Bush dismissed as fuzzy math. Gore began to come on late in the debate and wound up finishing strong. His points about Bush's plans benefitting the rich were well made and should have scored him points. Al Gore was basically Al Gore we've seen this kind of performance from him before. At this point the presidential election becomes a popularity contest. Gore reading his resume and spouting facts and figures while it is impressive has a tendancy to turn some viewers off. Bush on the other hand came off as smooth and easy going with an adequate grasp of the basic issues. Something he failed to do in the rebublican primary debates. While I don't believe there is any question Gore is more qualified to be president. I dont think Gore added anything to the equation while Bush scored valuable points for style and likability. And he did not hurt himself on the issues. At least not for anyone inclined to agree with him. As much as I hate to admit it I have to call this one advantage Bush.
Mr. Damenace by mr stay puft	Oct 3rd, 2000 11:12:48 PM
'Anything is better than the status quo'. Like economic depression. Like unemployment. Like (insert any other failed system, i.e. communism, here). I don't think so. No sir, the status quo has been pretty good to the VAST majority of people in this land of ours. Is there room for improvement: Hell YES. But 'anything' is not the answer. As for the other party candidates: if they had enough support (I'm talkin REAL support) they would be included in the debates. Ross Perot was included in '92 but his poll numbers were easily in the double digits. Nader & Brown have less than 5%. Not significant. Please note that I agree that there is a lot of outside influence in Government. Do you know how to lessen its effect on us? REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT. That simple.
who won??? by magusreno	Oct 3rd, 2000 11:17:35 PM
During the debate I was sure that Gore was winning because he just tore apart Bush on the huge problems with his budget. How is Bush going to repair the military better than Gore when he's only putting in half as much? I can't comment on much else because... I got bored zzz. I'm still pissed at the Republicans for ignoring the national debt... anyway, that's all I care to say about that for now.
Hey Mr. Stay Puft... by Pizza The Hut	Oct 3rd, 2000 11:17:39 PM
...I didn't say Gore "was" more honest. I said he "looked" more honest, not that he "was" or "wasn't". There is a difference. However I didn't think either of them were actually being all that honest in certain areas. Honesty is a word that's kind of foreign in politics on both sides of the aisle. I just think that Gore "looked" better than Bush on a whole in terms of presentation.
Looks can be deceiving... by mr stay puft	Oct 3rd, 2000 11:32:27 PM
but facts is facts. Remember kiddies, this is the Al Gore who said: His mother sang the 'union label' song to him when he was a boy (he was 27 when it was written); he initiated the strategic oil reserves (1975 - he wasn't elected unitl '76); he invented the internet(do I really have to go on...) So we are faced with an important decision. Al Gore: pathological liar or completely delusional. You decide.
the martyrdom of voting on morality by Kubrick's Rube	Oct 3rd, 2000 11:48:00 PM
Stay Puft, clearly you are supporting Bush. I hope you support him for his stance on the issues and not because of your disdain for Gore. I like Gore and Bush as people and will concede that Bush has had fewer truth foibles, but on the issues, I support Gore 82% of the time and Bush only 32% (these numbers from the AOL questionaire I filled out on their political page). Even if Gore's exaggerations were issue related, I'd still vote for him, because I will not be a martyr. I'd like our president to be honest, moral and all that, but it's more important that my vote go to a candidate whose ideas are not confused at best and detrimental to most aspects of American life at worst. I mean, I'd vote for Charlie Sheen if he was the Democratic candidate, I think Bush is that bad. So basically, if you like Bush for his ideas, I respect that though disagree. I you dislike Gore for something other than the issues, I ask you to rethink your stance and not be a martyr. Vote on the issues. Please.
Nader, were the Hell was Nader by Belelak	Oct 3rd, 2000 11:48:26 PM
You can say all that you want about the debates, but it is all meaningless unless you consider the fact that two party candidates were not invited Nader fot the Green Party and Buchanan. This is nolonger a democracy were the media serves the peoples best intrests. It is a corprit entity were big buisness controled media tells the american people what is important.
Catch-Phrases by madamimadam	Oct 4th, 2000 12:03:16 AM
Both candidates were highly repetitive in this first debate. It's as if they have stock catch phrases to say while they frantically search their brains for a fresh one. I'd say it is about even at this point. As a movie fan, I'm not sure which one will do the least amount of damage, though I sorta think it would be roughly equal. It was funny when Dubya referred to Gore as inventor of the calculator.
Why Bush Won... by WombatControl	Oct 4th, 2000 12:08:00 AM
You may have only seen one candidate, but that means you weren't paying much attention. Bush held his own, giving some very good reasons why his policies work, without avoiding Gore's getting caught up in numbers. Personally, I don't want to hear numbers in a presidential debate. I want to know why policies are enacted, not figures. If I want figures, I can look them up and explore them on my own. Gore's overall tone was condescending and his constant snickers and sighs were both annoying and childish. Now, Bush wasn't perfect, but he held his own. He was confident, he spoke to the American people, not at them, and he did what he needed to do. It wasn't a smash hit, but Bush accomplished enough to keep Al Gore from taking the debate to his side. The race ain't over, and it could go either way, but I'm confident that Bush's message is by far the better of the two.
BUCHANAN 2000! by darthpsychotic	Oct 4th, 2000 12:08:21 AM
um, actually not. I actually agree with Patrick J. on jobs and immigration(immigration hasn't been to good for american indians) but little else. I am leading a one man boycott of your governments sham elections just like a did in 1996. However I am shocked at some of you cocksuckers support of Bill "Joey Buttafuoco" Clinton's Vice President. Now, hear me out, I am as liberal as the next guy who supports the legalization of drugs(injuns use peyote and other drugs for religious purposes ya know) and the lowering of the statutory rape/age of consent laws so as I can still "date" high school girls(why date a ugly chick your age when you can get hot teen ass?). However, in 1992 Cocksuckin' Clinton ran against the Bush/Greenspan/WallStreet economic recovery (current economic recovery started in second half of 1992)and promised to stop moving jobs to third world countries and a middle class tax cut! What happened after Clinton's inauguration? Clinton reappointed Fed Reserve Chairman Allen Greenspan(who was first appointed to the Fed by Reagan and then promoted to Fed Chairman by Bush). Then in 1994, Bill "Joey Buttafuoco" Clinton lost control of the 40 YEAR DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE to the Republican Party. Futhermore Cocksuckin' Clinton did absolutley nothing while for 2 years we heard how the Simpson Murders were A PLOT PERPATRATED BY THE WHITE MAN(thats right I blame Clinton for OREO Simpson going free, someone (if not me)will wack him someday). Lastly, Bill "Joey Buttafuoco" Clinton had Monica Lewinsky(who is the same age as Karenna, Al Gore's daughter) suck his old wrinkled willy and thus descrating OUR White House. What was worse however was that he continuely lied to you people for almost a year which topped America's last psychological assault when for 2 years we were bombarded with dumbasses who said the Simpson murders were a plot perpatrated by the White Man. You know it must run in the family because Chelsea Clinton is now dating a White House intern (oh its true, its true). I guess what I'm trying to say is that the goverment needs to be overthrown and May 25 should be made STAR WARS DAY, a paid holiday commemerating STAR WARS. Hell why not make Lucas's birthday(5-14-1944) a Holiday as well. To some it all up, I just would like say I am finishing uploading 2 Laetitia Casta mpegs (yes her HooHaa's are shown) and 6 Tara Reid softcore mpegs on my website www.LUKESKYYWALKER.net (not affilated with 2 Live Crew or Lucasfilm, rot in hell). In doing so, I will be doing my part in honoring the First Daughter Chelsea Clinton. GET-PSYCHOTIC
Harry for President! But it's "oriented" not "orientated"! You s by Bari Umenema	Oct 4th, 2000 12:09:28 AM
Harry Dubya's gonna git you! You're a hometown boy from Austin and he's your Governor. But his brain was stuffed to the eyes and ears with "learnin' stuff and briefing book gobbledygook" tonight. Gore however is the WORLD'S BIGGEST PHONY. He's the artificial man sci-fi authors have been warning us about for decades now. Vote for Nader just to protest that he wasn't even allowed to sit in the audience tonight, he had a ticket to attend and they bounced him!!
Kubrick's Rube, you've got your principles wrong by Mathew Lukacs	Oct 4th, 2000 12:15:40 AM
Kubrick, you've got your principles wrong. I'm not going to come out and say which candidate I like, because thats not what this post is about. Seriously, listen to yourself. You're arguing that because half the people make bad choices with their money, that they shouldn't get any back? That they should have no say in how their money is handled? That is not what this country is about. This country does not guarantee you the right to never make bad monetary choices...nowhere in the constitution does it say that. I'm pleading you to think about what you posted. Take a long hard rational look at it...yes, we may make bad choices with our money, but its our money...better yet, lets look at it a different way...its MY money, and YOUR money. It is not the government's job to make choices with our money. We give the government money, and tell them what to do with it...not vice versa. So what if the people make bad choices? That is not the point of government! People make bad choices, then I'm sorry, I'll lend a hand and help em out in times of need...but they have to live with that choice. I hope they learn from it, and don't make it again. But its still THEIR money (and mine), and THEIR choice (and mine, and yours). Do Not get lulled into this proposterous idea that the government knows what is best to do with your money. It does not...YOU know best what to do with your money. And YOU hand it to the government every year and YOU say, "do THIS with MY money." You do this by voting, by writing, by involvement. So please, I implore you, start thinking logically, and read what you said. On a second note...based on the cycle which has occured over the last 200 years, we should have had a major world conflict by now...but it has been over 50 years since a major conflict...why is that? Are we due then? No...your logic makes no sense. Sure, we need to study the past, study why the depression occured...but cycles end, and economic policy should not be based on a cycle...it should be based on what has and has not worked in the past. And in the past...tax cuts have worked every time they've been tried. Lets see...Kennedy in the 60's...Reagan in the 80's. Yes we ended the 80's in a recession (the smallest in history I might add), but they 80's also saw one of the greatest economic booms. However, I am forced to agree with you that the economy is not good...and I'm going to make every economist kringe when I say this, but seriously...why, if the economy is so good, does a family have to hold down at least, AT LEAST, two jobs to support itself? In the 50's it was almost unheard of to have multiple income families. But the answer is not to give the government more money, the answer is to give the people more money...after all, where are they going to spend it? Good or bad, it still flows back into our economy. Ok...this has gone on far too long...just seriously, THINK RATIONALLY.
GORE WILL TAKE YOUR FUCKIN RIGHTS AWAY by Oceanlizard	Oct 4th, 2000 12:18:54 AM
Gore maybe kissing ass, after all he said it best that he has been doing it for 24 years. Anyone old enough to remember that his wife wanted to put a rating system on music to prevent teenagers from buying what she and HER FUCKIN HUSBAND called explicit lyrics? One of the words was "damn". Woooo such a dirty word. A social security system plan that will work for 55 years....and then what Mr. Vice President. He cut the Federal government down in size yeah by cutting the US military, that is not bad; but he failed to mention that the US military is deployed more warzones now than there ever was during the COLD WAR. Gore has been spouting the same shit for the last eight years, and nothing got done. Oh and for you none critical thinkers out there that say,"Hey what about all of that beneficial critical legislation that went during ASSHOLE and Gore's terms"? It's called congress you morons! They control the money. Republican Senators and Representatives had already promised America some of the great legislation that ASSHOLE and Gore took credit. Anyone out there remember contract with America? It was not entirely bad, in fact ASSHOLE and Gore supported 3/4s of the contract; but once again ASSHOLE and Gore took credit and at the same time tried to convince the rest of America that the contract was evil. WHAT THE FUCK? Why do I not call Gore an asshole, because one time he was a good man that grew up in a racist home and married a Nazi wife and he did care about the people, but he listened to his racist father too much and then he went to work for ASSHOLE and MRS ASSHOLE. And I pray that the ASSHOLE family leaves office and never comes back! Amen. Bush gave honest answers and he is giving Americans the benefit of the doubt that they can manage their own money. Bush goes to the disaster zones and helps...get this people...AMERICANS. Gore agreed to send troops to Kosovo to save Transient Albanians, in California they call them illegal aliens, from being slaughtered, GOOD. But now they Illegal Aliens are slaughtering the Serbians on a scale unparalled, but where are the troops to help the innocent Serb farmers, there are none. It is n election year and ASSHOLE does not want to hinder his wife's Senator race in NEW YORK because it would mean that the troops are not working out and it would hurt Gore's Presidential run that in eight years will go to....come on guess who....MRS ASSHOLE!!! BUSH does not have to repeat himself, because he gets the job done right the first time!
to: darthsiskel by Krigan	Oct 4th, 2000 12:19:11 AM
I am all for tax reform but I own a small buisness and I don't think it's fair to make us collect the taxes for the government. I hate collecting the 5% state tax already now some are proposing that I collect another 10% to send to uncle sam. It may not be that big of a deal for big corporations with full time accountants, but for small buisness owners it's nothing but a big hassel. I won't even get into payroll taxes they suck too. The entire way the government handles taxes needs to be rethought and simplified.
debate by "BLAB"	Oct 4th, 2000 12:27:13 AM
Bush does`nt have a clue.He just wants to be like his Daddy.We need to go foward not backwards.VOTE G2K all the way!!!
Vote for Gore! He's F-in' hardcore! by Dancin' Ted	Oct 4th, 2000 12:28:45 AM
I'm sorry, but what I watched of the debates was just funny as hell. Even though Lieberman scares me, the way Gore manhandled Bush has DEFINITELY influenced my opinions of the two. Not that it matters...still voting for Jake Fogelnest anyway.
GORE'S GRADES by Oceanlizard	Oct 4th, 2000 12:34:11 AM
Somebody mentioned that Daddy Bush got his son into Yale because his grades couldn't. Hell if my Dad asked me to choose the school of choice saying he could get me in I would be estatic. But back to Gore's grades mostly Cs and Ds at his Ivy school Yale I also believe and I bet his Daddy got him in also. By the way Bush finished school Gore dropped out and he went to another school ....and dropped out. Come to think of it did he ever finish college?
To Oceanlizard by uberjoe	Oct 4th, 2000 12:45:07 AM
Actually, Gore went to Harvard. Bush went to Yale. Where did your "facts" come from again?
Worthless Debates by Oceanlizard	Oct 4th, 2000 12:46:20 AM
Tonight's debate was utterly useless. Most political analysts agree that debates ever since the first aired on television...Kennedy & Nixon... that debates are a sham. When the first debate was aired on television it was also aired on the radio, and whoa what a contrast. People who watched the debate said Kennedy won hands done, while people listening on the radio said Nixon won hands done. Televised debates are no more than beauty pagents, empty. They will say anything to win, and Gore has had alot of practice telling you what you want to hear and Bush is still learning. Gore has done fundraisers and broken one Senate tie vote for the last eight years and Bush has been running the huge state of Texas. Gore has been working for the Spin master President, Bush has no spin master. Who has had more expierence in leading Bush or Gore?
To UBERJOE by Oceanlizard	Oct 4th, 2000 12:50:49 AM
Well I was not sure if it was Havard or Yale. Is there a big difference? The info on the rest comes from the associated press and the independent and highly liberal news outlet Th Nation, not that Republican piece of copy crap.
I want off the planet! by JackieJokeman	Oct 4th, 2000 01:00:08 AM
James "Kool" Polk for President!
How Al sounded to me by Teransolo	Oct 4th, 2000 01:01:29 AM
"If train A is going west at 90mph, and train B is going east at 75mph..."
I wish Nader was there by Oceanlizard	Oct 4th, 2000 01:02:12 AM
If I felt a third party canidate could win I would vote NADER all the way.
So Bush isn't as big an Idiot as everyone thought by BrianSLA	Oct 4th, 2000 01:13:40 AM
Gimme a break! I've been a Republican since grade school but George W is a joke. John McCain was a better / IS a Man, a better leader and a true patriot. He should have got the nomination and deserved it. He would have been a better President than Gore or Bush. But that being said, George W. is a such an empty suit. He isn't half the man his father was. My first vote was for George Sr. And George Sr was only a so-so President who was great in foreign affairs/defense but sucked at domestic issues. George W. won't be half as good as his father. Gore showed he is a brilliant man who knows the issues. He knew his own policy plans and he knew Bush's. Bush didn't even know his own own plans. It is a sad day in America when every Pol on tv says that Bush might have won because he wasn't as bad / wasn't an idiot as everyone thought. Gore handed Bush his lunch.
And the votes are tallied by spenworks	Oct 4th, 2000 01:16:54 AM
As goes AICN talkbacks, so goes the country! Bush is a lost cause. His support is soft, at best. The republican party has been co-opted by the Christian right. People are still shamed by the embarrassing performance of Henry Hyde and Bob Barr, they are no longer proud to be republicans (by that, I mean the average rank and file republicans, not the testosterone filled, reactionary assholes that post uninformed bullshit here). The Bush/Cheney ticket isn't FOR anything, it's just AGAINST things. It's the "anyone but Clinton" vote. Doesn't mean it won't be close, 'cuz it will, it'll be a horserace. Bush tried to pull a "Reagan", with the "there ya go again" comments, but it failed to really resonate, because people vote their pocketbooks, and the country (on average) is much better off than it was 8 years ago (Shit, I own a house now. Who'da thunk?!?) Also, with regards to Texas (no disrespect intended, Harry), I understand that pollution is among the highest in the country, poverty is among the greatest, and Bush's claims about the educational system obfuscate the serious problems kids are having down there (they're not educated better, they are trained to take the assessment tests well) That being said, he did very well (but I still think Gore killed him)
AWOL by spenworks	Oct 4th, 2000 01:22:53 AM
This hasn't really come up yet, but.... Gore served his country bravely in Viet Nam (even if he was a journalist) Where was Bush? Oh, the National guard? What?!? He was AWOL for a year from the national guard?!? During VIET NAM??? Is that true??? Yes, Virginia, it is. Shit, that's okay, he was probably drunk.
A Liar vs. a rube? by Redbeard_NV	Oct 4th, 2000 01:23:13 AM
OK, call W. all the names in the book, but it comes down to this. For seven years, Al Gore has had his lips firmly planted on Clinton's ass, and it wasn't always Bill's! He is avowed liar, caught so many times in half truths that I can't even begin to tell where the turth began, if it ever did with this man. His have changed his position more times than Clinton depending on the poll. When caught in a lie, he shrugs it off. He calls Bush a puttet of big oil, but what about the fact that he and Bill are puppets made in China, who continue to pull the strings. W. may not be the sharpest tack, but at least he hasn't changed his message like Gore has every time a poll says what's new and popular. Vote Gore and we condemn the country to not just another 4 years of a Clinton presidency, but a possible revival of a Socialist nation like the USSR. Government is everything, the individual is nothing. Remember what has happened to our country in the past 8 years. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzales, Wag The Dog, FileGate, TravelGate...You have no rights except what Janet Reno, the FBI and the ATF say you do after the video has been sanitized.
Debate? I Think the Mechanical Webshooters People Made More Sen by Buzz Maverik	Oct 4th, 2000 01:24:55 AM

Bush during Vietnam by uberjoe	Oct 4th, 2000 01:25:47 AM
He was bravely defending Texas from possible invasion by Mexico or Oklahoma.
A better way. by nolanliang	Oct 4th, 2000 01:27:08 AM
Telecast game of Sid Meier's Civilization. 'Nuff said.
Dear Americans! (Thoughts from a european...) by daklaw	Oct 4th, 2000 01:34:51 AM
ou have to realise that your vote concerns the whole world. As the most powerful nation in the world you need to vot someone who can take that responsibility and continue Clintons work. Honestly...can you see George W Bush having peacetalks with the palestinians or the serbs? Come On! Gore is the only on who can continue the legacy!!! Please Vote Gore!!!
Dubya, The Empty Suit. by stewart	Oct 4th, 2000 01:36:26 AM
Honestly, how can anyone support this man? Not only is he two-faced in his quest for "no finger pointing," the man has no stature. He's been floundering since the DNC. When his right wing conservitism wasn't working for him, he went and tried to steal the issues that were, and still are, winning the race for Gore; education, medicare, etc. What did he call it "compassionite conservitism"? Whatever. He also accused Gore of running in a borrowed suit. I say this...WHAT THE HELL IS DUBYA DOING? Who's suit is he running in...his daddy's and every other "good 'ol boy" rebublican. He claims to be a republican of the 21st century and then goes and chooses someone from his Dad's era for his running mate. All that aside...if I had never seen or heard of either of the candidates before tonight...Gore would be who I would choose. Granted, philosophically we're on the same page...but to see Dubya struggle so much was just damn embarassing for him. The only counter for Gore's numbers was "those are fuzzy numbers." A witty reply? I THINK NOT! He just doesn't know his shit well enough to refute anything Gore says. Even if the numbers were "fuzzy", where were the so-called "real numbers". Huh?!?!? And then on issues of foreign relations...do you really want Dubya trying to solve the world's problems and protect national interests? He didn't know anything about Bosnia or Serbia. He looked like a fool. And then he studdered around..."well....you see...umm...it's like this...you see..." DAMN! Do you really want him sitting across from the leaders of other nuclear powers at a world summit. GOD HELP US! And then...not two minutes after ragging on Gore for finger pointing (something Gore did NONE of during the debate), he turns around, and in attempt to find someway to dodge Jim Lehrer's question, shoves his self-righteous finger in Gore's face. Come on folks. If you vote for Dubya you're gonna get Geroge Sr's old suit with nothing but really wealthy shit inside. It's a damn shame. That shit will probably ruin those designer shoes, too.
Debate by X-Girls	Oct 4th, 2000 01:40:26 AM
Unfortunately for you, I missed it. If you want some truly hilarious commentary about it, check out Leno, Letterman, Kilborn, Stewart, and CONAN O'BRIEN. tommorrow they should have debate material. NBC @ 12:35 watch Conan O' great stuff man, I'm telling you no one should miss it, he may still be on vacation. Does anyone wish there were another candidate? Gore is alright (pick o' the litter) but Lieberman..?
Leftwing Diatribe (a good one) by spenworks	Oct 4th, 2000 01:41:10 AM
This was written by my father. I don't exactly agree with him, but it's a pretty brilliant piece of renegade political musings. I'm voting for Gore, but I totally see where he's coming from: "Disgruntled? You bet! Dismayed? That too. Angry? Big time. Anybody else out there feel like they've been tricked, duped, seduced and abandoned? Who am I angry at? Me. Why do I feel this self anger? Well, therein hangs a tale. I was raised a very left leaning liberal Democrat - from a long line of left leaning Democrats. My Grandmother was known in NYC as 'Anna the Red' and was an organizer for the ILGWU and a card carrying 'Commie'. RMNixon and the HUAC were objects of villification in my house almost as far back as I can remember. My parents were members of the ACLU. I was an idealistic youth with great hope for a world with equality for all - free from poverty and hunger and in my naivete I truly believed that the Democratic party offered salvation for us all. I became very active in Democratic Party politics -- working tirelessly to keep that "War Monger" Goldwater out of a position of power. It was a time when we thought that all good things were possible. Hope was alive across the land. The dream was brutally shattered by a rash of assassinations and the escalating war in Viet Nam. I withdrew from the process declaring a pox on both houses. I was just another one of the millions who dropped out of the process. Oh, there were occasional visits - the Peace and Freedom Party looked interesting for a skosh, but nothing really got me. I did once register to vote - to cast a meaningless protest vote for Jackson in a California primary - more to piss people off than to actually bring about any change. I watched a seemingly endless stream of rich, white, narrow minded Republican bigots do just what I expected them to do. It went on forever - Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush -- would it never end? I withdrew further and further. When Clinton finally broke the Republican log jam I wasn't interested. He had moved the party of my youth and my heart so far to the right as to make them indistinguishable from the enemy. What was it Pogo said? "We have met the enemy and he is us?" Right on! I remained cynical and uninterested. Then, slowly at first, my position started to change. The National one server Health Plan -- 'Project Hillary' looked mighty good to me. The soothing words to our Gay brothers and sisters about military service. Then when Gingrich and the forces of darkness took over the congress by campaigning against the Health plan I became even more interested and involved. I started following developements in DC more closely. I took great joy in watching the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot over and over. Every time they came after Clinton and lost I was euphoric, gloating, letting myself believe that there had been some kind of meaningful victory. Poor little fool. What was I thinking? I was once again a proud Democrat wallowing in a self satisfied swamp of platitudes from party headquarters. I'm embarrassed and ashamed of myself. We've had eight years of good Democratic leadership and where has it gotten us? I'll tell you. Child poverty is up. Homelessness is up. Racism is rampant. The rich are richer and the poor are poorer. The USA is in the best shape in history and the people are in the worst. Inner cities are crumbling- two, three, four generations bereft of hope. The mentally ill are living in the streets. The schools are are a joke. Drugs and violence prevail. . The teachers are underpaid, underqualified, underappreciated and largely incompetent. The prisons are overflowing and the justice system is in shambles. The state is executing the poor and mentally ill at break neck speed. The oil companies gouge with impunity- profits up 400 - 500 - 600 per cent. The drug companies gouge with impunity. The HMO's gouge with impunity. Old people are eating dog food. Life? Liberty? The Pursuit of Happiness? Kiss my old hippie ass! For years my mantra has been EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION. I was sure that education was the answer to all our ills. An educated populace would surely do the right thing. An educated populace could do it all. There are many among us who can remember when we felt that a free quality education through college was our birthright. I think it still is. But education is only a part of the answer. My friends what we have here is just what we've always had here. We got us a class struggle and we been sold a bill of goods. I'm sixty years old and I think that the only time in my life I have seen meaningful change come out of Washington was in the Kennedy/Johnson years. Brown vs the School Board -- the War on Poverty -- Head Start -- Community Colleges -- AFDC -- even the Peace Corp. There was hope. Why then and not now? I think the credit belongs to our black brothers and sisters who took it to the streets - who showed us that we did indeed have some power. Did the Woman's movement win all those victories because all those old white men suddenly came to there senses and decided that equal rights was the only right way to go? Give me a break. It was the sisters in the streets burning bras and throwing rocks. Remember the placards? 'The hand that rocks the cradle can also cradle a rock' and 'A woman's place is in the house.....and the senate'? Did black americans gain acess to lunch counters because the 'Time was right' Nah - it was the fires and the weapons and the offing the pigs that made Martin Luther King Jr. seem palatable. So we've had eight years of good Democratic incrementalism -- eight years of trying to stop the Republicans from makin thing worse. And where did it get us? Things are worse. No more for this ol'boy. I have finally come out of my stupor. I think we will all be better served to move back to our idealism of days past. It is time to stop begging and start demanding. What do we want? Freedom! Freedom from poverty and hunger and illiteracy. And when do we want it? NOW!!! How do we get it. I'm not sure. I do know that we won't get it by following any party line and hoping. Shit in one hand and hope in the other - see which one fills up first. We'll start getting it when things get so bad that an irate public takes to the streets and demand that the Corporations and the top 20% percent or so pay their fair share. Flat tax? Kiss my old hippie ass again. We need a graduated tax that makes the rich pay a fair share of the load. We were much better as the loyal opposition than as the party in power. All we've done for the last eight years is scrabble to maintain our position in the center. Fuck it! The center is not where I belong. I want a government run Health Care System. I want quality Schools and well paid, qualified teachers. I want everyone with a job to be above the poverty level. I want reform of the prison and justice systems. I want free pre-school and day care for working folk. I want a country where the air is breathable and the water drinkable. I want a country where there is hope for all. A country where one's children have the opportunity to do better. We ain't getting it from the Democratic party, and we sure ain't gonna get it from the Republicans. I think the only thing we can do is deprive the Dems of power and force them back to the left. Maybe if they don't have to protect entrenched positons they will be free to offer the American People some programs that actually address some of the grave issues affecting us all. Remember that all we have now is two Republican parties divided by the 'abortion' issue. I'm gonna register to vote for the first time since Jackson's first California primary bid and I'm gonna vote "Green". I urge all of you to do likewise. Venceremos"
3rd Party Candidates by nolanliang	Oct 4th, 2000 01:41:17 AM
It pisses me off when people say they won't vote for a third party candidate simply because it would be throwing the vote away. What the hell?! Now, I understand the reasoning; you don't think the good candidate has a chance, so it's best to strengthen the base of the lessor of two evils. The problem with that reasoning is that on one side, you're saying that your vote isn't enough to make a difference, and then you turn around and say that it is. Let me clarify. By assuming that a vote for someone like Nader would be wasted, you suggest that your individual vote isn't strong enough to make a difference(put him in office). However, your vote somehow magically becomes of enough worth to be needed to strengthen a more likely candidate. If one were to be logical, one would simply decide not to vote if one felt one's vote were insignificant. Ah, fuck it. The people I'm preaching to probably wouldn't understand the logic in the first place. I hope you die.
joke by X-Girls	Oct 4th, 2000 01:42:06 AM
After George Bush and Bill Clinton, do we really need another bush in the white house?
Vote Bush & Chaney by briansanderson	Oct 4th, 2000 01:49:56 AM

3rd party candidates by spenworks	Oct 4th, 2000 01:54:51 AM
If any of you out there ever considered voting for a 3rd party candidate, I beseech you to read the above article (the really long one). It will put fire in your hearts (and maybe under your butt) It really is quite a brilliant little article promoting serious change in this country.
Gore made a complete fool of himself.... by crimsonrage	Oct 4th, 2000 02:10:12 AM
....he kept nervously giggling when Bush would point something out. I don't care how the hell a candidate carries himself, I listen to the issues, and Bush DEFINITELY won there. He showed how liberals keep throwing money at education but do nothing to change it for the better. He also showed how Gore wants to expand the governments power, which is always a bad thing. And Harry, just because your a democrat does not mean you have to try and defend Gore's stance on violence in the media. Even if Bush belongs to a party that has sometimes cited this, he has NOT. So don't blame him for what others in his party have done.
If I heard right... by Robin Goodfellow	Oct 4th, 2000 02:20:42 AM
the United States is the only democracy that doesn't have a prominent third party. What gives? So much for that equal representation thing. I unfortunately missed the debates meaning I'll be grilled tommorow by all my politically savvy co-workers and ridiculed. It seems to me from reading the comments above, though, that things went as I figured they would've: Bush made a fool of himelf (how big a fool I'll have to see) by displaying his ignorance of the issue while Gore got to show how much he knew while making himself look even more like a robot. Oh well... I'll see if I can stream the darned thing before going to bed. Take care everyone. Vote Nader. Peace
Vote Libertarian! by SlackerKing	Oct 4th, 2000 02:24:24 AM
As a Harry Browne supporter, I could care less about Bore and Gush...err, Gore and Bush. But I did watch with some interest and trepidation as Gore mopped the floor with Bush. It was embarrassing to watch Bush flounder and he tried to latch onto a catch phrase to cover up the fact that he is totally clueless. Alas...if only third-party candidates had been allowed to participate. Even Nader the Red...err, Green candidate would have added some variety.
Two Party Conspiracy by Lazarus Long	Oct 4th, 2000 02:27:24 AM
Do you really think you were getting the whole truth and nothing but the truth from either of these two chumps? Get real. Why did they change the debate rules afrer '96? Because they didn't want someone like Perot forcing them to cut out the bullshit and talk straight. Nader AND Buchanan (the psycho that he is) would have made this much more eye-opening to the american public, as old Ralph dissects and strikes down every load of shit that these two whores spew out. If you think that either candidate isn't controlled by special interest groups, you're insane. True Power in the Hands of the People will never come through Democratic or Republican control. VOTE NADER, and maybe he'll have a snowflake's chance in 2004 with federal matching funds that were denied this time. The election has already been corrupted and tainted; don't waste your vote on one side of the same coin. www.votenader.com FIGHT THE POWER!
Gore & the Internet... THE TRUTH by marcrenton	Oct 4th, 2000 02:32:35 AM
Gore never... NEVER... said that he "invented" the internet. He claimed, quite honestly, that he was part of the Senate group that voted to turn the internet from a military tool into a public system. He voted in favor of this and the bill was passed. Gore was misquoted on page one and the retraction was printed on page seventeen as is normal in this media-frenzied culture that we live in. I feel disgusted that we live in an age when such sound bytes can color a person's entire reputation... however, I'd like to point out that it shows how ignorant Bush is that he keeps making personal jabs about a comment that Gore never made.
the internet by spenworks	Oct 4th, 2000 02:41:00 AM
No, he did say that he invented the internet. he said it on TV. What he didn't say was that he was responsible for uncovering Love Canal. He was getting press for saying that, but he didn't. But, the internet thing he, sadly, did say.
check out this link, you third partiers by Robin Goodfellow	Oct 4th, 2000 03:01:51 AM
"Nader tossed off grounds at debate site"... that's the headline. read more at: http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOL ITICS/stories/10/03/debate.pro tests.01/ peace
Yo, what the fudge? Gore's a f---in liar and Bush is an f---in i by freexter	Oct 4th, 2000 03:12:36 AM
So there you go. Forget all you bleeding-heart liberals and you bible-thumpin fanatics. If you cared about the fuckin' environment like you all claim you wouldn't spend your time on bulletin boards or on the computer, you'd all be out there DOING SOMETHING for the friggin environment, so get the fuck off your pedestal. And for all you bible-thumpin mofos and your integrity bullshit, up yours, you fuck around more than the fuckin' democrats. Please tell me HOW THE FUCK is Al Gore going to do all the bullshit he promised, when the fucker couldn't even do it WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS. And don't give me that bullshit about him not being the Prez, he was IN THERE and he didn't so SHIT, so don't give me this crap that he'll do something NOW if given another 8 years. Bullshit. And Bush couldn't pronounce 'Austin' unless he lived here. The big moron. The only person who deserves to be president is Ralph Nader, so all you fuckers who can ACTUALLY VOTE, vote for Nader. NOW THERE'S A MAN WHO ACTUALLY GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THE PEOPLE! Forgot all the fuckin slogans Gore and that idiot Lieberman and Bush and that fat cat Cheney spouts. Nader's the one with the REAL results behind his back. Back the right man! Back Nader for President!
Too bad Harry Browne wasn't invited. by grundle	Oct 4th, 2000 04:08:02 AM
When I saw Harry Browne on C-SPAN on Sunday, he said that on Tuesday's debates with Bush and Gore, the following question would definitely NOT be asked: "Do you think that you would be better off today if, as a result of your illegal drug use that you did in your youth, you had been forced to spend 10 or 20 years in jail?" I will be voting for Harry Browne in November. This country was founded on the ideas of freedom nad liberty. Before the 20th century, all drugs were legal. You could walk into any pharmacy and buy herion and cocaine over the counter. For most of this country's history, there was no federal income tax. Before the 20th centuty, there was zero federal spending on social security, medicare, medicade, food stamps, welfare, and public housing - there were zero federal programs to "help" the poor. And it was during this time that the United States became the richest, most properous country that the world has ever known. Government programs don't make people better off. What makes people better off is capitalism. You can start out with nothing, and end up becoming a billionaire. We have too many government programs. The government pays farmers not to grow food. This makes food more expensive. Then the polticians who support these programs cry their fake tears about the "millions of hungry children" and they say that we need to spend more money on food stamps. Al Gore's "tax cut" is not really a tax cut at all - it does not lower the marginal rates by even 1%. Instead, Gore is using the tax code as a way of creating all sorts of new government programs. Gore thinks that bigger government is the solution to every problem. When Gore says he wants empowerment, what he really wants is to empower the government - he wants to make the government bigger. Bush wants a new government prescription drug program for seniors. Both major parties want bigger government - more spending, more invasions of privacy, and more violations of our rights. The war on drugs and the income tax are the two worst things ever to happen to this country. You can read Harry Browne's ideas at http://www.harrybrowne2000.org / Go there and click on "Find out Harry Browne's stand on the issues." Remember - the Libertarian Party is the ONLY political party that has not complained about all of the sex and violence in the media. The Libertarian Party is the ONLY political party that is 100% against government regulation of the media. Politics is no longer about liberal vs. conservative. Instead, it's about freedom vs. government control.
Worst Choices in My Young Life by Ashtray	Oct 4th, 2000 04:23:40 AM
I have learned over the course of life never to presume to know everything. And when the discussion of politics comes up, I realize that there are a multitude of intricacies and details that I simply do not know. But I consider myself an educated person and I follow world and national issues with enough imparted knowledge and self-understanding that I feel I have a grasp on what's important. And these two asses don't have a clue. I was wary of John McCain because I always felt a President should re-assure me with his stature and poise and McCain was just....well, creepy eeirie. But Bush hasn't got clue one about how to tie his shoes and Gore is too "righteous" in his following of the Clinton-blazed media path to have an original thought any more. I yearn for the day when a candidate steps up to a podium at a nationally televised debate and tells the other candidate that while he may be required to deal with the issue of campaign finance reform, that's genuinely not the most pressing issue facing us today. I want a candidate who proves to me that he gives a damn about this country again. I want a president who believes in education but understands the importance of defense. One who realizes that the family values in today's society are crap. I want a goddam president who DOESN'T get the "Capitol Hill Disease" that pervades these crochety old asses: THEY ARE FAITHFUL TO THEIR WIVES AND DON'T SEXUALLY ABUSE THEIR FEMALE STAFFERS. But I'm never going to see this. Because morality is wasted in the public's eye. Too many thoughtless simians feel it should take a backseat to anything else. And the good people? The ones I would vote for? They either don't feel the need to drag their poor families through the much that is the overexuberant and irresponsible media or they simply cannot win. It's a sad state of affiars today which won't change any time soon.
ATTENTION ALL SHRUBS! by spunksf	Oct 4th, 2000 05:02:44 AM
Do you know any women? I do, and most of the ones I know kinda like being in control of their uterus. Just think about it for a minute. Do you want to have a baby? Do you want to have a baby right now? Wouldn't it suck to find an infant or your doorstep and you didn't want it? Now, wouldn't it suck even more if instead of your doorstep, it was in your stomach? Yeah, yeah, it's a serious subject and not an easy choice to make (even when it's in convenient pill form) and I shouldn't make light, BUT, Bush and a Sumpreme Court named by Bush would repeal Roe v. Wade. Come on, ask him. He's just dying too. Look, vote for whoever you think is best, that's what it's about. Just keep in mind that when you vote for a certain canidate, your casting a vote against over half the population of the United States. Would you want Jessica Alba to be denied her reproductive rights?
Christ Almighty, Bush got his ass whipped by oceanfrog	Oct 4th, 2000 06:21:13 AM
Man, I didn't think it was possible for Bush to look that bad. He seemed like he was flailing around at a high-school debate podium, unsure of his answers, unable to come up with anything but the most moronic adolescent response when asked to think on his feet. As the debate wore on his uh's and pregnant pauses got so bad that I thought he would fall right off the podium. He obviously has not the interest, knowledge, responsibility, leadership, or character to become president of the United States. What an idiot.
Harry, Harry, Harry... by nuke187	Oct 4th, 2000 08:19:17 AM
I think this is a case of seeing what you want to see. Both of the candidates lived down to expectations. Gore came across as a a hypocritical attack dog (yeah, he's going to take the front for campaign finance reform when he can't obey the current laws, sure), Bush as a fumbling opportunist (what, it's okay to use an abortion drug, but it should be outlawed if a doctor does it?). They're kind of blending into a mishmash of saying whatever it takes to get elected. The most accurate poll (Rasmussen at http://www.portraitofamerica.c om/) is strangely showing Bush had a bounce and a lead outside the margin of error going into it. Can't wait for the weekend to see who's ahead then. Of course, I'll still be voting Browne, regardless...
Why I'm Voting For Lex Luthor. by Buzz Maverik	Oct 4th, 2000 08:33:42 AM
He doesn't really exist so he can't do us any harm. Plus, he's promised to rid the Earth of those pesky, X-ray visioned flying aliens! Join the Imaginary Party today!
manowar by nuke187	Oct 4th, 2000 08:38:36 AM
One correction: Gore went to Vietnam, all right... as a reporter. Basically used his daddy's connections to avoid combat duty. Also, is anyone not from Tennessee even vaguely aware that he was further to the right up to 1988 than GW is? That was the year he first tried for Prez -- and changed his position on every issue. Now he has Lieberman following in his footsteps...
Al Gore Loves You! by MonkeyManStan	Oct 4th, 2000 08:40:36 AM
I was in IRC this morning and the topic of the channel had this url in it. It's too funny. http://www.algorelovesyou.com It tells you how much Al Gore loves you baised on your name. Fun stuff.
Gore's Poor Performance by Peirce	Oct 4th, 2000 08:52:52 AM
I consider Gore the looser of the debate for one simple reason: he was childish. He kept signing and snifing and grimacing. He also kept interupting and plowing ahead to get more campaign sound bits out. Gore was rude and didn't abide by the spirit of the rules.
Enough with the "Al Gore invented the Internet" crack" by TheHammer	Oct 4th, 2000 09:07:34 AM
If you want some facts rather than the typical GOP crack about the Gore quote, check out what Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf think about Al Gore's involvement with the development of the public Internet at http://www.theregister.co.uk/c ontent/6/13640.html
HARRY and MORIARTY in 2000!!!! by MrGonev5	Oct 4th, 2000 09:19:23 AM
I didnt watch the debates, and i didnt need to to tell you that they sucked. Gore sux, Bush sux. i'm from Texas, bush screwed it all up, texas sux now...in fact, Bush wants to have his house or something not far from where i live...so hes gonna screw that up too. so, i'm not gonna vote for either of em...i cast my vote for HARRY and MORIARTY as Prez and Vice Prez...wouldnt that rule!! either that, or i think that they should have a NONE OF THE ABOVE option on the ballot. MrGone
Misquoting Gore ... by tdibble1	Oct 4th, 2000 09:19:46 AM
Gore never said he "invented the internet" (that was a Dick Armey misquote of Gore). He said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" when asked what his political accomplishments were. I'll quote two Internet pioneers who agree: [Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf]: "Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development." Even Gingrich admitted Gor was the original backer of the initiatives which led to the Internet as we know it today. See http://www.geocities.com/gore_ in_context/internet.html#Blitz er
NONE OF THE ABOVE by MrGonev5	Oct 4th, 2000 09:21:56 AM
now that i think about it, they really should have a NONE OF THE ABOVE option on the ballot...what do you think? wouldnt it be great if NONE OF THE ABOVE got the most votes too...LOL...so there ya go... "Now Surrender Hopping Boy, Or This Charming Young Chickie Is Added To My Score!" -MrGone
Boo Hoo Bushy by Omega Red	Oct 4th, 2000 09:50:32 AM
Bush is such a goddamn cry-baby...i didnt watch the debate at first but i read the transcript from cnn.com, then i watched a rerun of it at 2 am i believe (i have no life)...My favorite Bush quote is "that's just...that's just....that's just totally false". Cry about it Bush. Bush also interrupted Gore on many occasions showing that he is quite rude and unprofessional "that (forgot the name) is a real asshole". Bush is a fascist, no matter how hard he tries to cover it. Gore was very wise in saying that Bush had spent time attacking his character and credibility, and that he wouldnt respond in kind. Good move...I'm now semi-interested in the vice-prez debates (thursday?). But all this talk about Gore lying, isnt that what politicians do? I think a degree in bullshit (a B.S. if you will) is a prerequisite for any government office. Someone said that voting for Gore would bring about socialism such as in the USSR, good job there buddy. First of all the USSR had a perverted form of communism, communism through fascism i like to call it. Secondly, under socialism everyone (not just the well off and wealthy) has a chance for a good life, education, health care. Socialism does work (though not necessarily the extreme forms of it). Look at Europe, Germany for example. I've decided that the republican/conservative attitude is this "If it doesn't apply to me, then fuck it", and thats the real problem. So bottom line....Bush is a redneck who will destroy everything thats been accomplished in the last 8 years...those of you who are rich (unlike me, who's most valuable posession is this shitty computer) will be the only one's who will benefit if he wins...the rest of us will get it right in the ass. In this country, unlike in others, only two parties will ever have a chance to win. Its sad and depressing but its the truth. I'd therefore like to say to people to vote Gore, but I know that no one here will really listen or care about what I've had to say...I'm done now...latah
Bush is unqualified in every field. by riskebiz	Oct 4th, 2000 10:05:52 AM
George W. Bush has not been Governor of Texas longer than Clinton has been President. It's also his first real job (and as I understand it ... the governorship of Texas is largely a figurehead position). Being put on the board of directors of daddy's oil companies or using dad's money to buy interest in the Texas Rangers does not count .... the matter is very simple ... do people want to go on to the year 2001 or do they want to go back to 1988? It's shocking to me that this lightweight has done as well as he has. It's also unbelievable to me that Clinton was crucified for smoking, but not inhaling in college, but somehow it's off limits to talk about Bush's snorting in the early 80's. Gore has shown time and again that his politics are idealistic ... and what more can you ask for? Why do these men want to be President?.... AND THIS IS VERY SIMPLE ... Gore's idealism suggests that he wants to help people and Bush thinks that being President will look good on his resume. I will never vote for a man who wants to be President just to get a libary afterward. The Bushes are not the Kennedy's. They are not the Roosevelts. They are not even the Adams'. Self serving rich oil barons are what they are and why this race is close is beyond me. Gore won last nights debate. Bush lied and ducked issues at every turn. His idea of hard working people are his millionaire cronies and I doubt that's in my best interests. I will not vote for him and his resume. His reason's for being President are dubious (like Dole's reason for being President: It's MY turn!). Vote for Bush you want to go back to 1988. Vote for Bush if you want to return to fiscal policies of Reagan/Bush that drove up deficits. But when the s#!+ hits the fan, and you voted for him .... I will tell you you deserve it. Vote Gore.
Too Long by w_buhr	Oct 4th, 2000 10:07:10 AM
Some of these posts have been WAY TOO LONG (Spenworks). I want to read what everyone has to say, but not for hours on end. People, GET TO YOUR POINT. Now I will get to mine. We have had 8 years of DICK N BUSH in the white house. WHATS WRONG WITH AT LEAST 4 MORE???
Gore Could Ruin us all! (Don't you people pay taxes?) by LordUndertheMtn	Oct 4th, 2000 10:25:41 AM
I simply have two points to make. First of all, Gore wants to implement numerous programs that would give elderly people perscriptions for reduced costs, pay for this and that, and other things...the programs he suggests would be expensive, but he says the "projected surplus" can cover that...what happens if the "Projected surplus" doesn't continue? I'll tell you...that means they tax the ever living piss out of us to pay for all his new programs. Compare numbers on the two candidates, and Bush will spend a LOT less than Gore on things, and get it done right without breaking middle class people with higher taxes. Gore wants to spend money like the government is rich...government should NEVER act like it's rich. Second note..Gore was/is PRO-LIFE, he has recently changed his stance to come into line with his party, but in the past he was pro life...if you research you can find it. So....who exactly would repleal Roe v. Wade? Nobody...if you understand the government process, you realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a president to overturn a law, even if he elects 2-3 new justices. Do you know why the justices about to retire haven't done so yet?? They don't want the Clinton/GORE administration to appoint their replacements...that should tell you something right there about who you want in your whitehouse. Gore was there for all the corruption of the Clintons, yes corruption, and was a party to it..."gee..I didn't realize that this was a fundraiser...oh...and it's illegal...well...shucky-darn" Gore has broken the law, and has allowed the law to be broken with his knowledge...I don't want someone who can lie like that in the whitehouse...at least if you're going to lie to me...make it so I can believe it. That's all I gotta say. Vote for Bush...if not for Bush...then Nader...but certainly not for GORE.
Let's avoid the Prez race from now on by Oceanlizard	Oct 4th, 2000 10:28:12 AM
Even I vented on this. This is not cool news. Please don't turn this site into cnn or mcnbc. thanx
A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader by Hjermsted	Oct 4th, 2000 10:44:51 AM
yawn.... Global corporations are so far up these guys asses that Gore is the puppet on the left hand, Bush is the puppet on the right. Last night what you saw was the elaborate ongoing puppet show. If you want real change in America... end of Apartheid change or fall of the Berlin wall change... you will need to be bold and vote for a new party and a new type of candidate. As Roddy Piper said in Carpenter's They Live... "Put these glasses ON!" See through the BS people... There's still plenty of time to learn what the other parties are talking about (especially the Green Party). BTW, if you're voting for one guy because you are afraid of another guy winning... then you are an oppressed person. Vote Hope Not Fear!!
This country is fucked. by r_dimitri22	Oct 4th, 2000 10:57:26 AM
They are both liars.
Medi Scare by Peirce	Oct 4th, 2000 11:00:48 AM
Gore says.. Vote for me or kids in High School will have to stand during class. Gore says... Vote for me or seniors will die. Gore says... Vote for me or the planet will be destroyed. Gore says... Vore for me or Republicans will kill all Democrats and minorities. I say don't vote for Gore because I've had enough of the politics of fear. Please realize that the fear mongering will continue as long as it is effective.
RKZO281 by tdibble1	Oct 4th, 2000 11:02:18 AM
That's got to be the stupidest thing I've read here all day. You'r not gaoing to vote for a guy because he respects his wife's opinion? Fact is, in the real world (and the US was on display for the Real World in the Olympics) one who claps for himself is considered a rube. Tipper rightly pointed this out, and Gore rightly accepted her advice/reminder without having to have a long drawn out discussion. Personally, I'd put this in the "positive" column, although alone it would not influence my decision of who I vote for one bit!
Gore barely looked human... by SilentSword	Oct 4th, 2000 11:21:24 AM
I'm a partisan, but Gore has this ay about him that doesn't look normal. And it was so obvious he had blush on his cheeks and probally that liquid tan stuff as well. There's this quality to him that seems to phoney.
Here's what I think by Adric	Oct 4th, 2000 11:23:07 AM
Gore came off as more knowledgeable, but also a bit of an asshole. Bush seems like more of a regular guy, like he'd be one of my friends' dad. The problem is that I just don't know if I really want my friend's dad to be president, even if he is a nice guy.
Citizen Kang by Homer Jay	Oct 4th, 2000 11:55:42 AM
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH CANDIDATE YOU VOTE FOR. EITHER WAY YOUR PLANET IS DOOMED. DOOMED!
Bush=ignoramus by Winston Wolf	Oct 4th, 2000 11:58:00 AM
Bush is an airhead. I hate everything about him, from his dumbass ideas to his annoying as hell lisp. He is such a moron, the reason he is running for president is because he read an article by Gore about some artist or something and he said he wanted to keep that arty pretentiousness out of the White House. He clearly has no clue as to whats going on in the world and is a major pussy(When he was asked if he was president, would he overturn the ruling on the abortion pill, he kept saying that he doesn't think the president can do that. That wasn't the question you idiot.) He's also a hypocrite. He told reporters that he would not do dirty politics(demeaning ads etc.) and then comes out with an ad that mocks Gore and an ad with a sumbliminal message (or subliminable as Bush would say). If he is elected president i'm moving to Europe.
Lieberman means this lifelong democrat is voting for NADER by vondoom	Oct 4th, 2000 12:04:23 PM
nuff said
Gore's Academic Record ... by tdibble1	Oct 4th, 2000 12:10:27 PM
Gore dropped out of Divinity School because he had attended it for the experience, not to become a priest. Gore dropped out of Law School to run for Congress. Gore graduated Cum Laude from Harvard. BUSH, on the other hand, avoided the "hard" classes and skated by on a C average. Gore is clearly the intellectual of the campaign. Read what he's written. Listen to some of his Harvard professors (http://www.geocities.com/gore _in_context/harvard.html). Don't believe the lies posted here.
Get Rid of Me, I'm a Liberal by Ben Dobyns	Oct 4th, 2000 12:57:53 PM
"Actually, I -- this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I'm talking about -- when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me." "I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. " "It
Bush = BAD NEWS by mondoz2	Oct 4th, 2000 01:11:31 PM
The only reason Dubya became Gov. was because of his last name. Daddy gave him everything. Gore & Dubya both lie - They're politicians. Which one is going to make the best strategical desisions, though? A smart man or Dubya? Who do YOU want holding the keys to the nukes? A good ol' boy or Gore? Don't even get me started about Dubya saying he'd bring smoking back to the White House.
Clinton by spenworks	Oct 4th, 2000 01:13:28 PM
If Bill Clinton could run again, he'd win in a landslide.
Gore vs. Bush - Academics by TKE_Motown	Oct 4th, 2000 01:36:19 PM
This is in response to everyone posting comments about the two candidates education. Neither man is dumb, (they couldn't be, and still get to their current positions), however one did do better in school. Check out this site for the article entitled, "So who's the 'dumb guy' now?". http://www.jewishworldreview.c om/cols/coulter.html Vote for BUSH! Its the only way to preserve our rights, and pull out of the tail-spin this country is in because of the Clinton/Gore regime!
From the responses here it seems... by nolanliang	Oct 4th, 2000 01:46:05 PM
Both Bush and Gore will destroy the universe. I find it interesting though that no one has said anything negative about Nader. This points to 2 things: Either he is actaully the best choice, in which case you should vote for him; or you don't know enough about Nader to trash him, in which case you should really study up on the candidates before voting at all.
RE: Spunksf by crimsonrage	Oct 4th, 2000 02:17:30 PM
Imagine you are a baby in your mother's womb enjoying yourself. Then suddenly, you're being chopped up limb from limb. Moments later your corpse is being sucked through a tube into a sink. Sounds fun, eh? Your analogy was funny, the only problem? Women don't just walk around and BING! they're pregnant!You see there is something involved called intercourse! Wow! Just because a few women can't use birth control does NOT mean BABIES should be MURDERED! And some of you may say "You don't know the pain of being pregnant!" To that I say, "You don't know the pain of being chopped up and sucked into a sink!"
I only caught the back-end. by superninja	Oct 4th, 2000 02:20:02 PM
But I thought Bush held up much better than expected. I'd heard it started off pretty slow. One thing that definitely bothers me about Bush is he seems to be continuously trying to re-word Gore's plans to give a bad spin on them. I couldn't count how man times Gore had to counter to correct his "misinformation". But as for Gore, his blatant pandering to the middle class and his constant average-American name dropping bit really turned me off. At least Bush talked about individual responsibility for all instead of targeting a single economic group hoping to grab a large chunk of the vote. (Gore could be just a TAD more subtle, y'know?)
The real measure of a man: Will he make a GREAT SNL skit? by superninja	Oct 4th, 2000 02:29:32 PM
It's a tough choice, folks...
Debate, debate, debate... by AuntieMeat	Oct 4th, 2000 02:40:52 PM
I'm will Bill Hicks this year... there's one guy holding up both puppets... Gore wants to take away lotsa personal freedoms... George is a goober and supposedly wants to let us keep all the stuff EXCEPT abortion... blah blah blah. You know how your grandpa always says you can't trust politicians? Well, he's damn right. Part of the reason I want to live my life traveling on a personal boat is so that I won't have to deal with the government getting into my business. I can just live with my family in the good interntational waters, travel the world, homeschool the kids and forget all the political crap that goes on here. The two parties are the damn same - they're both headed by evil fucks. Make a change if you can... vote Nader, Brown, someone else... but if things ain't changing, my opinions aren't either. Y'know, I think this little strip says it best - check it out -> http://www.non-sequitur.net/ar chive/2000/07/np000723.html Remember... brains are for thinking.
They should open the debates. by superninja	Oct 4th, 2000 02:55:31 PM
It's just not fair to the American people to continue the bi-partisanship that is taking politics to new lows. I want to know what these independent candidates think about this, but their voices aren't heard. It sucks. Even if they can't engage in full debate, at least maybe they could attend them and raise some questions that might take a bit of the shine off of Gore and Dubya.
McCAIN FOR PREZ!!!!!! He's the only man right for the job. by J-Dizzle	Oct 4th, 2000 03:11:57 PM
The Republicans blew it when they decided to screw McCain out of the Presidential Candidacy race. If John McCain (a true leader and somebody who has truely served his country unlike G W Bush) was the Republican candidate, I'm sure this would have given the Republicans a guarunteed one way ticket to the white house, but NOOOOOOO, they decided to go with mummy's-boy-when-do-I-get-to-c hange-my-diapers George W. Bush. Bush does not come off as a strong leader, since most of the stuff he's been doing was dictated by his mother. I hope Bush loses, thus giving McCain his true place as the top Republican candidate, and the respect he dserves. Imagine how McCain must have been feeling when his own party showed him no respect and basically slapped him across the face with a "you're not one of us" statement. McCain is the only man strong enough and clever enough to take on the role of President of the United States, and I'll have words with anybody who says otherwise.
The trouble with letting Nader debate. by RobRed1	Oct 4th, 2000 04:01:46 PM
On principle, Nader should be allowed to debate. In fact, if he became a popular candidate, he would probably only split the democratic vote. That would take votes away from Gore and let Bush win. What's the lesser of two evils? Barring a qualified candidate from debating, or letting a forty year failure win?
Bush is a Winner, Gore's a Whiner by kgforce	Oct 4th, 2000 04:24:58 PM
Gore came across as a smarmy, spoiled, whining little boy during the debates. He didn't look or act like a president. He may be "smart", but he sure likes to exagerrate and embellish the truth to make himself look better than he is. He continually rails against "big oil", "big pharmaceuticals", etc. As if those are inherently bad. What's next? "big grocery stores", "big automobile manufacturers", "big software companies"?? Being from Texas, I'm familiar with GWB and how he works. The way the Dems portray Texas, you'd think it's a third world country. But Texas is great! And it's gotten better since GWB became governor. By the way, Bush has a MASTERS DEGREE (MBA). Gore's a Grad School Drop Out.
*NASA and Al Gore* by lavamaniac	Oct 4th, 2000 04:39:13 PM
I like both candidates. I don't listen to what they say and do cause we all know a lot of it will never happen while they are in term...But one thing that will keep my vote from going to Al Gore is he Always votes against NASA. He has never voted in favor of NASA...and really if he is into all the technology he talks about...then why doesn't he support NASA! NASA is a big part of this country and has a lot to do with how we got to where we are today with our technology. Just a thought...I wanted to know if others felt the same way.
Taxes by SuperAnt	Oct 4th, 2000 05:11:34 PM
Gore wants to make the tax code more complicated. Bush wants to lower rates. The riches 5% of Americans pay for 50% of the taxes. So, duh, cutting taxes unilaterally would favor the rich. The poorest 50% of Americans pay 5% of the taxes. Cutting their taxes gives them scant relief ad contributes very little to the national economy. However, Bush will do it anyway because it is the right thing to do. I believe taxes are a moral issue. Do you believe that 1/3 of the money that you earn doing your job should be taken away from you? Do you think more of it should be taken away. Vote Gore. Do you think less of it should be taken away? Vote Bush. Gore's targetted tax cuts are so complex, most people won't qualify and even those who do won't know it because the tax code will be too difficult to understand and find it out. If you enjoy paying a couple hundred dollars each time you do your taxes then you can pay someone to figure it out for you, but I've personally found out that some of those licensed professionals are simply fill-in-the-blank accountants who wouldn't understand how to get you your targeted tax cut. I'm willing to take a chance on Bush who may not be as brilliant as Gore, but knows what is right for the country and is single-minded enough to do it.
"Mr Gore, the monks will see you now...." by Mully4Ever	Oct 4th, 2000 05:16:25 PM
Gore or Bush? Hmmmmmmmm. Gore wants to get rid of automobiles, let the government tell me how to spend my money, and invented the internet. Bush has a death penalty THAT WORKS, wants to drill oil instead of using up our strategic reserve, and will allow me to invest in my social security without the intervention of the government. Gore is a majority whore with no stand on anything unless the numbers look good.
They Both Lost by Anton_Sirius	Oct 4th, 2000 05:18:56 PM
Bush couldn't have looked more clueless if he tried, plus his attempts to turn every question into something about Clinton's character were sad and pathetic. Gore did no better- he came across as a juvenile whiner with all his sighing and cheap shot attempts to rattle Bush (even though they worked), not to mention smugly superior. But who can blame him- Pauly Shore would look like a Nobel laureate standing next to Bush. Vote third party, people. Please. This election is already a write-off since one of these deceitful, arrogant, rich, pompous bastards will win no matter what. You can't vote for the lesser of two evils since THEY'RE BOTH EQUALLY EVIL! Vote third party, and try and get them matching funds and debate time in 2004. It's the only constructive thing you can do with your vote.
Death Penalty That Works My Ass by Anton_Sirius	Oct 4th, 2000 05:22:17 PM
Bush only stayed the executions of two people while in office in Texas. One of those two was Henry Lee Lucas. Yes, THAT Henry Lee Lucas- Henry: Potrait of a Serial Killer Lee Lucas. Henry '150 Confirmed Murders, but I Claim To Have Killed 600 More' Lee Lucas. Bush had no problem offing pregnant retarded grandmothers but he couldn't throw the switch on Henry Lee Lucas? That's fucked up however you look at it.
I still think Al Gore should have organic webshooters... by Monty Python	Oct 4th, 2000 05:24:47 PM
...And I just dont buy "W" in the role.
So when is a throwaway vote not a throwaway vote? by superninja	Oct 4th, 2000 05:29:14 PM
When people actually make a stand collectively as a society and say, "We're ready for something else." Yeah, it will be a throwaway vote in this election -- but what about the next? I'm really considering voting 3rd Party this time around. Maybe I'm a lost optimist, but something has to give.
Nader by SuperAnt	Oct 4th, 2000 05:29:16 PM
I don't like Nader's policies because he also wants to expand the role of government bureaucracy enormously. I believe him to be a principalled man who will do propose all of his campaign promises. However, he is at the opposite end of the political spectrum from me. Choking the political information stream by enacting authoritarian campaign finance laws also has the benefit of giving his party a louder voice that it has not earned. If the American population was Green, that party's candidates would enjoy much greater success on the local political scene than they currently do. I don't want a government twice the size it currently is even if Nader's goals are humanistic and compassionate. They would be disasterous economically for our country because they do not allow for a transition from current regulation to the near-ban on some industries proposed by him and his party. Like it or not, there are many more Americans living on the same amount of ground as 60, 70 years ago, not to mention hundreds or thousands of years ago when some of the virgin forests were being sprouted. The answers to our material and space problems are not cease-and-desist orders, but scientific, logical methods for extracting more from the same area while competing with other countries that are not hindered by American companies' regulation but who still need to live in a global marketplace.
Libertarian by SuperAnt	Oct 4th, 2000 05:38:27 PM
Harry Browne for President representing the Libertarian party probably most closely matches my personal political philosophy. I want smaller government. I want my state government to control my life much more than the federal government because state workers live near me and must experience much of my own situations. I trust that more than life-long politicians living in a government conclave on the east coast in the midst of a city that they have collectively ruined. However, Harry can't win. Also, Browne advocates too much isolation. He would never dispatch troops to any foreign land for any reason. This would ruin alliances with other countries and cripple any foreign policy we want. He closely resembles Pat Buchanan in his advocating an America-only mindset in regards to our relations with other countries. However, on the subject of personal liberties, I agree with him. Harry gets fewer votes than Buchanan, though, and we all know that Pat doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning he Presidency or even getting enough votes to get matching funds for the next election. Libertarians need to get their views known and recognized by the public so they can win local offices and expand from the grass roots to eventually battle for the high offices. I personally think that a splinter faction of the Libertarian party needs to be created which represents a more balanced representation of the American public.
Pat Buchanan by SuperAnt	Oct 4th, 2000 05:47:14 PM
I don't like social conservatives who want to use their political offices to enforce their strict morality on the public at large. I believe protectionist tarrifs hurt our economy and support inefficient business practices by trying to force other countries' products to cost more than ours. This didn't help the auto industry and it generally doesn't help others. His isolationist policies may reassure Americans who fear that the country they grew up in is changing too much, but it tries to put blinders on the fact that the world is changing and American has a role to play in global politics. As Spiderman might say, "We have great power. Therefore, we have great responsibility". We should not allow other countries to tell us what to do. That is the role of you and me and our democratic political process. We don't need to jump to the far right to protect our national sovereignty. Pat's takeover of the Reform party was a depressing farce. The reform party didn't change and choose Pat as its leader. Pat brought his numerous American supports to outnumber the Reformers and they won't stick with the party when Pat is through using it. Too bad Perot squandered the momentum he had by going off his rocker. There were quite a few people, me included, who were ready for an outsider to shake up the political scene.
Third Parties by SuperAnt	Oct 4th, 2000 06:02:56 PM
Third parties probably love to look back to the days just prior to the civil war when an upstart organization can the Republican party quickly swept the nation and put Lincoln in power. The problem that they don't realize is that the Republican party crystalized the American repugnance of slavery. It seems weird to say it since we all know that there was widespread racism all through the rest of the 19th century and even into the 20th, albeit with much less than the media has led you to believe. But it's true that a common moral viewpoint packaged with more mainstream political ideals was able to capture the Presidency so quickly. Current third parties do not have such an issue. More than 50% of Americans do not believe that the Dems and Reps are doing such a bad job on the environment that they need to be tossed out immediately and replaced with Green candidates. Reformers use that R word, but when the country is generally prosperous they don't really have anything to revolt against. Libertarians think that their views on personal responsibility are self-evident, but they don't recognize that most Americans are satisfied with the limited freedoms they retain even though they've given up much of them in return for old-age security and guiltless decisions to barely support charities. These parties seem to think that they can reform the government from the top down. If they capture the Presidency or at least get their issue discussed they can create widespread support for their party. They are clearly wrong. They need to bring the national power of their parties into a collection that focuses on one paticular portion of the country: California for example. If they captured the mayors' offices and the assemblies then they would have a base from which to grow and eventually take over the Presidency. Without a base of successful candidates they will always be viewed as fringe groups that by definition do not represent the views of most Americans. If you really want Nader to win, vote Green for your Mayor, assemblyman, state senator, governor, etc. The straight party ticket may seem brainless, but it gives your candidate a chance. Just make sure to get involved in your party and get them to put up decent candidates. I think it's ridiculous and disrespectful to see a candidate on the ballot with their previous work history described as 'hemp advocate and librarian'. If you vote for simply for the candidate and not for the party then you need to get your candidate into a party that will support him with enough votes to matter and not one that will be ignored.
McCains downfall by JackieJokeman	Oct 4th, 2000 06:16:01 PM
Im convinced it was the comb-over.
Bush stated better policies by SuperAnt	Oct 4th, 2000 06:17:23 PM
Yes, he's light on the details. That does not mean that he can't handle the Presidency. Gore is all detail and no substance. He has taken the proven Clinton technique of promising the world and obscuring the impossibility of delivering on the promise by minutia. He promises prescription drug coverage for the elderly while leaving huge loopholes that could prevent them from getting the medicine they want. Go on medicare and give up your private insurance. Medicare won't give you the same medicine as quickly and you may not be able to do it with you family doctor, but at least you won't see the bill, becaus we'll raise taxes on your social security check to pay for the new drugs and bureacracy. By the way, I know a couple of guys in the drug industry and I'll make sure they get the government contracts because they contribute to my campaign. I hope that their's is the best, most efficient process to get your medication. Sorry, that was more a rant on Gore than a support of Bush. I'll try to get back on track. Bush's inability to throw meaningless statistics proves one thing. He has to follow through on his stated aims because he doesn't have the political skill to change direction effectively. Fortunately, he belongs to a political party that will help him get these policies enacted as long as they stay in power in the Congress. Our military is the mightiest in the world and much weaker than it used to be. Some servicemen would like a decent training course so they can learn how to not die when they get sent overseas. Bush will support funding for training, wage increases, and material replacement lost during Clinton's term in office. Since history never stands still we also need to work on defending ourselves from tin-pot dictators who are finding it easier to get their hands on intercontinental missiles. I'd rather have a defense in place before they fire one at us rather than after we lose a few neighborhoods on the coast. I want a President who is more likely to appoint judges based on whether or not they will interpret law rather than try to create laws by misrepresenting the ones that exist. Bush may have a blank look occassionally and may not have the most smooth vocal delivery, but I'm not voting for Don Pardo for President. I'm voting for someone who can represent my political views and who can get things done.
Why Gore's lying makes him a bad Presidential candidate by SuperAnt	Oct 4th, 2000 06:25:27 PM
Simply put, you can't trust that he will do what he says or won't do what he doesn't say. Because Gore can't honestly deliver his political policies, you don't know if he really cares about making sure there is enough home heating oil for your grandparents each winter. Sure, he wants to make oil more affordable now because it might get him more votes for the Presidency, but will he care next year when he doesn't have to get your vote? Does he really support campaign finance reform or is he simply looking for a way to deny money to other political viewpoints while lining his pockets in any way possible? I sincerely believe he wants to enact hard environmental legislation which is what make it so hard to understand Nader's support during this election. When Clinton was running for office I could understand why Green might be afraid that their policies would suffer, but Gore is clearly supportive of greater regulation. But if you want to help get my man Bush elected, then by all means vote for Nader. Does Gore really believe we can develop alternate energy sources without relying on nuclear power, or does he just want to reduce the amount of oil pollutants no matter how much it costs you and how many jobs are lost? Does Gore really believe in a woman's right to choose or does he need pro-choice votes for his party? The fact that Gore lies so often on so many issues makes me believe that you don't know even half of what Gore will actually try to do when elected. It may be substantially less on the issues you care about and substantially more on the ones you don't.
Why Roe vs. Wade should be repealed by SuperAnt	Oct 4th, 2000 06:46:19 PM
You think a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant during her first trimester and even into her second with a doctor's approval? Great. So do I. However, Roe v. Wade was a bad decision. It took what is clearly a local issue and made it a national one by basing a decision on the emotional bias of the justices. I find it difficult to support pro-life candidates because abortion rights are very important to me. However, there is no Constitutional article that states that you are allowed to do whatever you want with your body. If there was, then prostitution would be Constitutionally protected and drug use of any kind would be as legal as drinking water. The decision was a bad one. I don't believe it should even be a national policy. I think individual states should decide if their populace is served by protecting choice and to what degree that should be done. You certainly don't need a constitutional amendment to protect a right. A simple law is sufficient. Here in California a woman may bare her breasts in public for the necessary act of supplying her infant with a natural meal. It's a law. So, a law would serve as easily as a Constitutionally enacted right. The only women who would be hindered would be those who live in a state where more than half of the voters believe that life is more sacred than choice. That means that the people themselves will have chosen to deny themselves freedom of choice. How is that the President's doing? How is it the fault of the Supreme Court for stating that the states must decide the issue for themselves? I won't live in Massachusettes even if I wanted to because of that state's laws and abysmal academic record. You do have the right as a citizen to vote and to move whereever you want. If you don't want a woman's right to choose to be abridged then vote for candidates who will support a law to state that. Don't flip the bird to the opposition and then run and hide behind Big Brother. If your gut reaction is that you can't possible risk the chance that the opposition might win then you're being as reactionary as any Christian fundamentalist. If you can't entertain for one moment the possibility that life is a sacred being that begins while existing in a mother's womb, then you're a moron because you're not using your brain to think about the issue, you're only acting emotionally about it. I don't treat kids throwing tantrums with respect because they're not being logical and fair. If you simply disagree about when life begins then at least we can disagree since you're using your brain. If you think life exists but the mom's desire to end it is more important then you are in murky moral waters that have representatives on both sides. No matter how you feel about the issue, though, abortion choice is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Even if ultra contructionist judges were appointed and repealed Roe v. Wade, which they should, a woman's right would quickly be protected by the various state legislatures across the country. All that being said, judges are afraid to lose the respect of the nation, too. They wouldn't touch that issue with a ten foot pole. So, Bush's election means exactly jack-shit about the future of a woman's right to choose.
Bill Bradley or John McCain by swavill	Oct 4th, 2000 10:22:39 PM
That is the presidential election we should have had. Both men are honest hard working idealists who actually seem to understand how those of us out here in the real world live. Its unfortunate that in this day and age you dont get elected President of the United States by telling the truth. You get elected by telling people what they want to hear.
Here's what Maureen Dowd thinks: by Junior D-Girl	Oct 4th, 2000 11:50:24 PM
Dead Heat Humanoids By MAUREEN DOWD/New York Times WASHINGTON - Tuesday was an evening of biology as destiny, genetically groomed specimens caught up in a battle over prescription drugs, the gulf between rich and poor, and apocalyptic pronouncements about the fate of the post-millennial world. That was the TV show you wanted to watch, over on Fox. "Dark Angel" had everything the presidential debates did not. Snappy dialogue. Captivating style. Gripping fight scenes. A compelling star, 19-year-old Jessica Alba, as Max, the bicycle messenger in a "Blade Runner" world who has black-leather attitude and a bar code stamped on her neck denoting her souped-up DNA. Max knows how to handle the Unexpected, and it's not by distributing hugs and tears to the dispossessed or even by inviting Russian ex-prime ministers over to her crib. She is not just a Reformer With Results. She's a Reformer With Lips. And unlike Al Gore, she knows how to apply makeup so that she doesn't look like a big, orange, waxy, wickless candle. On "Dark Angel," America's technology has been vitiated by terrorists who tossed up an electromagnetic pulse. At least there was a pulse. On the networks you could find the flatlining show you didn't want to watch, the tantric debate between the Insufferable and the Insufficient. I wanted to strangle Gore and slap Bush. I wanted the Dark Angel to hang both these weenies out of a window by their ankles, as she did some pushy, tattooed blonde. To borrow Max's lingo, I was not loving hanging in social studies class with prissy rich dudes yapping about the land of milk and honey, blah, blah, blah. I wanted to jet. A Max observation summed up my feelings about the Oedipal one-upmanship of Bush and Gore: "I actually feel sorry for guys sometimes. They're prisoners of their genes." ("So are dogs," her lesbian pal retorted.) This was the first debate, after all, that seemed genetically determined. Al Gore senior was a famous Southern orator who taught his son to get used to settings where he had to talk. George Bush senior was a famous New England non-orator who taught his son to be wary of settings where he had to talk. Al Gore learned from his father the value of old-fashioned populism, making a case to the people. W. learned from his father the value of old-fashioned elitism, not having to make a case to the people. W. did not check his watch, as dad did. But he was just as eager to see the clock run out. He acted annoyed, in a genial way, when Al Gore filibustered and threw in brain-twisters. But W. did not try very hard to wrest back the microphone. The microphone is not his friend. Months of study had given W. a fragile grip on the issues, but the tension about whether he would know an answer evoked the scene in Hitchcock's "North by Northwest" when Cary Grant (W.) is hanging on to the Mount Rushmore precipice by his fingertips and Martin Landau (Gore) is grinding his foot into Cary's hand. W.'s policy riffs were filled, as the jazz critic Whitney Balliett wrote of Thelonious Monk, "with dissonances and rhythms that often give one the sensation of missing the bottom step in the dark." Why does a man who has to be confronted with the inquisitive specter of Jim Lehrer to concentrate his mind on issues believe he is ready to be president? Al Gore was taught formal intellectual policy discourse at his father's knee. W. was taught informal bull sessions with the inner circle at his father's knee. Al Gore was never a natural performer, like his father, so he concentrated harder on his homework. If he could not be charming, he would be dogged. So now, in debates, he is doomed to be Annoying Boy, apple- polishing and doing that smug-mugging. Asked on CNN about his unvocalized but audible condescension, Mr. Gore explained that he thought his sighing was off the record: "Under the debate rules we were told there was going to be no coverage of our reactions when the other guy was talking," he said fastidiously. The vice president showed he was ready for the Oval Office. Still, you wanted to pull down his collar and see if there was a bar code on the back of his neck. He seems like a genetically engineered politician prototype, but with something slightly off
Now here's what Peggy Noonan thinks: by Junior D-Girl	Oct 4th, 2000 11:56:33 PM
The Off-Putting vs. The Unconvincing Gore was dark. Bush was light. BY PEGGY NOONAN Thursday, October 5, 2000 12:01 a.m. EDT "He won the walk." The speaker was a network producer just after Al Gore walked on stage, and she was right. The moment seemed emblematic of the evening. Both candidates strode out looking like big attractive men in big attractive suits, and shook hands, and Mr. Gore seemed to whisper something to George W. Bush, who seemed to nod agreement; then Mr. Gore, still clasping Mr. Bush's hand, subtly pushed him back half a step. Like a dominant personality. Like an unattractive dominant personality. Like a man who read Michael Korda's "Power!" and decided to put his desk up on a little three-inch platform so he'd always be looking down at others sitting in the office. Mr. Gore was trying to intimidate physically, which is what Bill Clinton did to Bob Dole in the debates of 1996. Normally it takes time for the clich
re: crimsonrage by spunksf	Oct 5th, 2000 02:40:16 AM
OK, here's me "B'bye." Here's you "But I'm Mr Pro-lifer, blah, blah, blah." Here's me "OK b'bye." Here's you "I don't understand irony or humor when invovled in a political context." Here's me "B'bye." Folks, the seventies were a strange time for us all. Of course it was really strange for one of our canidates, who spent it coked out of his mind. Hmmmnnn, now which one was that? Oh yeah, shrub-boy!
(Vice-)Presidential Rescue Rangers! by Payndz	Oct 5th, 2000 06:39:48 AM
Since I'm a Brit I don't get any say in US politics, and it's always some tall rich white guy who wins anyway, but from across the Atlantic Bush looks like a bumbling dope who I wouldn't trust to clean my windows, never mind run the world's most powerful country, while Gore let himself be sent up royally on television's funniest show. A vote for Gore is a vote for Futurama - would Fox shitcan a show where they got the President of America to guest-star? Just a thought...
I Challenge ANY AND ALL to refute what I have to say about the by ARCTURUS	Oct 5th, 2000 11:18:39 AM
I'll get right to the point...the debate was a sham. We are all being manipulated by certain people's selfish desires to believe that we actually have a choice in this election. Come on! It is INEXCUSABLE TO THE POINT OF TYRANNY that Ralph Nader or, for that matter, Pat Buchannan were not allowed to participate in the debate. Furthermore, Harry I'm surprised at you. I thought that you would put forth the same ammount of effort that goes into your reviews of the entertainment industry into your politics. You have bought into the snake oil that Gore peddles. He is clearly in the pocket of tyrannical corporations and not the average person. He is a stone-cold hypocrite when it comes to the environment. He and Bush are universally regarded as interchaneable at this point. Clearly, if you are pro-environment and pro-education, Ralph Nader, the man they wouldn't even let into the debate as a spectator, is THE ONLY CANDIDATE WORTH A DAMN. In fact, if any of you are resonably informed and intelligent, the same holds true. Do yourselves all a real favor and read literature by noted linguist turned-social critic Noam Chomsky. I gurantee your whole world-view will change after reading his books. If you must only read one, read What Uncle Sam Really wants. I am American and love America, but our selfish attitudes towards the rest of the world are brilliantly outlined by Chomsky. If you're musically inclined, do some research on the monumental punk band The Dead Kennedys. Listen to what their lead singer Jello Biafra, has to say. Then attend one of the Super Rallies of the Green Party. Learn why Nafta and the WTO are so destructive to the entire world. Watch Nader speak. Though not the best public speaker, the messages he sends ring true. You will NOT throw away your vote Harry, or the rest of you, ny voting for Nader. If he gets 5% of the vote, the next election will include more air time for the Green Party, which is certainly better than what we have now. Go ahead, all you naysayers, and refute me if you can. We supporters of truth and justice will explode your arguments like a chemical laser blast at Starscream from Galvatron's laser cannon in "Transformers: THe Movie".
no contest by cybernut	Oct 5th, 2000 12:45:27 PM
Gore is definately the best choice from the two major parites. After having experienced GW Bush as governor of my state for the last six years, he has done a horrific job. Houston is now the #1 polluted city, and WE are worse off than before he came into power. Gore made a point of wanting to protect the Alaska wilderness, and of supporting campaign finance reform, while Bush tried the same old tactic of character assasination. Make no mistake about it, with Bush in office, corporate America will have no bounds.
Wow Spunksf! by crimsonrage	Oct 5th, 2000 01:18:26 PM
Your superior intellect shames me. Especially the way you did a crappy David Spade bit. I guess you were right all along.
We'll tell you anything you want to hear, we lie like hell - How by PKD	Oct 5th, 2000 01:51:04 PM
Look, let's face it, they are both lying sacks of shit. What you need to know, what you haven't been told, is that the two party system is supported by corporate America. They like it this way because the message you receive can be simplified. Wihout a visible third party, the candidates can be so much alike, as long as the message differs slightly enough to make you believe you have a real choice. Unfortunately though, it is true that a third party vote is wasted because of the stupid electoral system. What we all have to realize is that the time to support third parties is between elections, not at them. In this instance, it seems clear to me that Gore is the better candidate, if only because he is less offensive. Remember that Governor Bush has presided over more executions than any other governor in U.S. history - is this the face you want on America? So please, vote for Gore, then afterNovember 7, sign up to volunteer for Nader and help him win the next election.
What GORONS (Gore Supporters) Must Believe by kgforce	Oct 5th, 2000 02:45:22 PM
1. Gorons sincerely believe that Vice President Gore is a true environmentalist, when he has an environmental disaster on his own farm: a polluting zinc mine, from which he received $500,000 of income last year. 2. Gorons likewise believe that the VP is anti-smoking and anti-tobacco when he has operated a tobacco farm for decades and accepted government subsidies. 3. Gorons truly believe that Gore is a Vietnam war hero, when in fact he was placed by family influence in a "cushy" correspondent's job and the only action he saw was that of his Brownie camera. 4. Gorons actually believe that Mr. Gore is justified in illegally raising political funds from the Office of the VP, simply because the Vanderbilt Law educated VP claims he was ignorant of the illegality. 5. Gorons further believe that it was OK for Al to accept large sums of political money from China through Buddhist monks who had taken vows of poverty, since he again claimed ignorance. 6. Gorons also believe that the man who claimed to "invent the Internet" would be so computationally ignorant that he could lose weeks of potentially incriminating e-mail! 7. Gorons, incredibly, believe Gore's claim that he and Tipper were the models for the book and movie, "Love Story" even though the book's author, Erich Segal, says not. 8. Gorons, amazingly, believe that Gore will be the consumer's champion against high gasoline prices although Gore holds a million dollars in Occidental Petroleum stock. 9. Gorons applaud Mr. Lieberman's open rejection of President Clinton's immorality, but believe it was fine for Mr. Gore to remain silent on the subject, while simultaneously declaring Mr. Clinton "one of the greatest Presidents of our history." 10. Gorons believe that Al Gore is an effective leader, when they won't bother to look at his record as a Tennessee Senator, a record so ineffective that it has led to the election of Republicans as BOTH of Tennessee's Senators! 11. Gorons hold the belief that Gore is a compassionate man who will be the working man's friend, in spite of the eviction notice he served to the poorfamily who complained about the conditions of the run down slum house that he was renting to them.
FICTION vs. FACT by kgforce	Oct 5th, 2000 02:46:49 PM
FICTION: Al Gore recently claimed that his mother-in-law pays more than $100.00 for the arthritis medicine Lodine; and he claims that his dog takes the same medicine for $37.00, claiming "This is wrong!" FACT: Gore's aides were quick to apologize for Gore's lie, saying the information was from a Democratic study. Washington newspapers also reported that Al Gore wasn't even sure his mother-in-law was taking any medication and wasn't even sure she had arthritis. And, he doesn't know anything about his dog's "arthritis". FICTION: Winifred Skinner is a poor little old lady who has to collect cans to pay for her prescription drugs. FACT: Mrs. Skinner has a nice home in a nice neighborhood of a very comfortable Midwestern town, she owns a new car, and she rode out in that Winnebago because she does not like to fly. The cost of gasoline to drive a Winnebago the approximately 1300 miles to the debate in Boston: approx $550. She collects cans because she likes to. She also has a wealthy son. FICTION: Al Gore said his father, a senator, was a champion of civil rights during the 1960's. FACT: Gore's father voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and was a racist who was fond of using the "N" word. FICTION: Al Gore said that his sister was the very first person to join the Peace Corps. FACT: By the time Gore's sister joined the Peace Corps, there were already over 100 members. FICTION: The same sister died of lung cancer years later and Gore vowed to never accept tobacco money as campaign contributions. FACT: Just four years later, while campaigning for office, Gore spoke to the tobacco industry and said he was one of them because "I've planted it, raised it, cut it, and dried it." He raised over $100,000 in "reported" contributions. FICTION: While running for office, Gore's campaign literature claimed he was a "Brilliant Student". FACT: Washington newspapers said he barely passed Harvard and consistently earned D's and C's. FICTION: Gore claims an extensive knowledge of law as a result of his extensive study at law school. FACT: Al Gore dropped out of law school. FICTION: Gore claimed that his knowledge of God and spirituality came to complete fruition while "finishing" divinity school. FACT: Al Gore dropped out of divinity school. FICTION: Al Gore claimed responsibility for inventing the Internet in the 1990's. FACT : Shocked scientists were quick to speak out, explaining that the Internet had been in widespread use by government and educational institutions since the early 1970's. FICTION: Al Gore claimed the book "Love Story" was based on his life and Tipper's. FACT: Author Erich Segal called a press conference to deny his claim. (Couldn't he at least lie about a love story where his sweetheart doesn't die?" FICTION : Gore claimed that as a reporter for a Nashville newspaper, his stories led to the arrests of numerous corrupt criminals. FACT: He later apologized for his claim and actually said it was untrue (Also known as lying). FICTION: Gore claims to increase diversity in the staff that follows him daily, especially among blacks. FACT: Black members of the Secret Service are suing because they claim they are not being promoted to positions guarding the Vice-President. FICTION: Al Gore said he was the first to discover the Love Canal nuclear accident. FACT: The incident was already discovered, being investigated, and covered widely in the press for many months before Gore was aware of it. FICTION: Gore said just recently that if elected president, he would put harsh sanctions on the sleazy producers of Hollywood's extreme sex and violence. FACT: Just six days later, Gore attended a fundraiser by Hollywood producers and activists where he told them that he would only pretend to "nudge them" if elected. He raised over $4 million. FICTION: Al Gore said he built his Tennessee home with his bare hands. FACT : Totally false! FICTION: Al Gore says parents should not have a choice between private and public schools because public schools are far better. FACT: Al Gore attended private school and he has sent his children to private schools. FICTION: Al Gore remembers his mother lulling him to sleep as a baby by singing the popular ditty, "Wear The Union Label". FACT: The popular ditty was created by the unions when Gore was 27 years old. FICTION: Al Gore claimed to co-sponsor the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act. FACT: The Act was not sponsored until he had been out of office for over a year. FICTION: Al Gore claims to be instrumental in keeping gas prices low. FACT: Gore has voted on numerous occasions to raise the tax on gasoline. In his book "Earth In the Balance" Gore claims that the nation's Number One enemy is the internal combustion engine. (That's the motor in your vehicle that gets you to work and takes your kids to school) FICTION: Gore pretends to champion the rights of poor women to be tested regularly for breast cancer with the most modern technology. FACT: While giving a speech on the subject in September, Gore didn't know what a mammogram was. FICTION: Al Gore promised Florida's senior citizens that they would finally have low-cost drugs with no interference from government. FACT: Gore's plan calls for the creation of a huge federal agency that would tell you which doctor you are allowed to see in order to get the "special rates". FACT: Al Gore told NBC's Lisa Meyers that he had never told a lie. When Meyers pressed harder, "You've never told a lie?!" Gore said, "Not that I know of." SOUND FAMILIAR?
Fiction Or Fact? Maybe In Bizarro World by Anton_Sirius	Oct 5th, 2000 05:32:10 PM
Approximately 72% of what kgforce just said is bullshit. (I won't vouch for the other 30%, plus or minus 2%.) At least when Gore lies he's coherent doing it. Bush lies AND butchers the language at the same time. He makes Danny Quayle sound like William F. Buckley. Our choices in this election are: A) Vote for the lying mannquin; or B) Vote for the lying retard. And both of them are in the pockets of exactly the same people. Oh joy. At least in previous elections we could choose WHICH industry pulled the strings for the next four years. Of course, you could always choose C) Vote for a third party candidate, and help them reach that magic 5% so they can have a more level playing field in 2004. But heaven forbid we "waste" our vote, right? Far better to vote for the winning Republocrat. Gush/Bore/Cheberman/Leiney in 2000! Yeah!
Bush's blank look by SuperAnt	Oct 5th, 2000 06:08:47 PM
I'm supporting Bush, but I can acknowledge that his speaking style and appearance do not always inspire confidence. Particularly telling was this consistent blank look with a slight smile as he stared somewhat vacantly into the audience during the debate. I think Bush gets that look when Gore tosses out half a dozen references to past policy or legislation to support his view. Bush doesn't know the details of half of what Gore is talking about and can only wait for him to finish. However, part of that look on Tuesday was also reserved for the fact that Gore was telling lies directly to the American people during a Presidential debate and Bush wasn't sure whether or not he was lying, remembering incorrectly, or simply doing a little distortion. Most specifically was the Vice-President's self-congratulatory assertion that he had gone to Texas with some FEMA guy to inspect the result of the wildfires. Bush, being the governor of that state, couldn't ever recall this as happening and was trying to figure out if Gore was lying or if Bush couldn't remember that he had been there and done that. So, while it is reprehensible that Gore will make up facts and flat-out lie to us during the debates, it does seem to be particulaly effective at making Bush look foolish as he tries to figure out what the truth is.
Kubick's Rube: "Bush's plans don't care." by The Garbage Man	Oct 5th, 2000 06:57:42 PM
I don't think this is a negative thing. Social Darwinism - the survival of the fittest - if half of the people make bad choices with their money, that's their problem. If they can't hold on to it, the money shouldn't have been theirs in the first place.
I Would Consider Bush To Be A "Master Debator"... by Miracleman	Oct 5th, 2000 11:05:07 PM
. www.minibosses.com
Gore won the debate: end of story by spenworks	Oct 6th, 2000 01:28:27 AM
Gore really cleaned Bush's clock in the debate. he was prepared, knowledgeable, informed and aggressive. Bush stammered, sniffed, repeated that dumb "fuzzy math" thing over and over again, and looked like he wanted to be anywhere but up at that podium. He looked like the only reason he was doing it was because his corporate/Big Oil buddies talked him into it, and convinced him he could steal the election. Not so, apparently. Bush's wife was practically crying, telling people that she wished Gore would stop attacking her husband. All the pundits (except a few that I will get to in a second) are scared to death to proclaim Gore the outright victor, but the vast majority of the undecided focus groups put gore ahead anywhere from 8 to 16 percentage points. On CNN's Inside Politics, Chris Matthews came right out and said, "I guess all the pundits who proclaimed a tie weren't watching the same debate I was". And he had the agreement of that Australian journalist who is one of the biggest Clinton/Gore haters out there, who came right out and said he thought Bush was a snake, AND got his ass kicked. As far as that post up above that lists all the FACT/FICTION? It's a list of a few facts, and a whole shitload of half-truths, misrepresentations, misquotes, and baldfaced lies. Do not take any of what he said at face value, do the research and find the truth. Which isn't to say that Gore is the epitome of truthfulness. He has a problem when it comes to embellishing his own achievements, which is kind of strange, as his achievements stand on their own. But in his defense, I could give you a list of similar, really bothersome embellishments by right wing politicians (see "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot, by Al Franken). So, to sum up: What does Al Gore need to do to win the next debate? He needs to go lighter on the make up, stop sighing audibly and shaking his head whenever Bush states a "fact", and stop telling easily confirmable fibs. What does Bush need to do to win the next debate? he needs to get a whole lot smarter. My money is on Gore. Oh yeah, I'm voting for Nader.
RE: morGOTH by crimsonrage	Oct 6th, 2000 01:38:10 AM
Um....so you want to kill mongoloids? Because someone is a mongoloid they should be killed? That's really nice. I'm pretty damn sure that every pro-lifer would allow an abortion if the baby were to kill the mother. But that is it. And stretch marks won't kill any women. The plain fact is that babies are being murdered. MURDERED. The main stance that Pro-choicers have is in geography. If the baby is in the mother isn't a baby but a 'fetus', but if it is outside of the mother, than it is a baby. Why? Why? WHY? The person who started Planned Parenthood was a racist who admired Hitler, and whose sole purpose in abortion was to get rid of Jews and Blacks. Ironic that a black woman is now its president, eh? A holocaust is happening in America now. The pro-choicers know this, but want abortion to happen so their welfare plans won't be over-crowded, and so their precious environment won't become over-populated. What B.S. If you are Pro-choice you are Pro-murder.
Planned Parenthood by spenworks	Oct 6th, 2000 02:01:29 AM
To Crimson Rage: The person who created Planned Parenthood was a woman named Margaret Sanger, and, as usual, you completely misrepresent her. She never supported Hitler, and the purpose of Planned Parenthood was not to sterilize black women (or whatever such nonsense you stated) The purpose of Planned Parenthood (a name she dispised, by the way) was to help women to control their own bodies, in a time when they couldn't even vote or own property. She was arrested numerous times for her cause, and always went back to fight for women's issues. She was a member of the first feminist movement of this century. She was sexually liberated and progressive (and kinda cute, to be perfectly honest) There is this sort of idea floating out there, a rumor sort of being passed around, that has turned into propaganda with the purpose of killing a sacred cow, that she was a nazi or something. Here is where that misconception comes from. Later in life she was most definitely a spokesman for eugenics, but at the time (the 30's was when she latched on to this idea) this was a popular progressive thought. But just because she believed in the concept of "breeding up" (when now we know and understand this leads to a smaller gene pool and inbreeding, which might account for Crimson Rage) doesn't mean she was a fascist. She couldn't have been farther from a fascist. She was a liberal, free thinking, progressive, white woman who dug going to England and having orgies (I kid you not, look it up), and happened to believe in a popular concept of the time. Science may have proven her wrong, but she still made an invaluable contribution to history, and women's rights inparticular. Crimson Rage, are you young or ignorant? Or both?
More about Margaret Sanger by spenworks	Oct 6th, 2000 02:34:43 AM
Margaret Sanger (I believe she was a nurse) started off performing safe abortions for roman catholic women, who often had like 10 or 12 children, at her home so the women wouldn't go and do it themselves, as when they did the result was quite often death. The reason the women (good, roman catholic women) would have it done was often financial (If a woman was roman catholic, she was an immigrant, and poor). The women understood that they couldn't afford to have more children, but they couldn't expect their husbands to stop having sex with them. So they aborted them (there is a biological precedent for this: ALL species kill unwanted children) Eventually she realized that there was a real need for safe abortions, so she flaunted the law, and opened up a clinic, first a hidden clinic, that you had to know someone to get into. Eventually there was such a groundswell for her services that she opened up a store front. The first day she was open, she had a line! Good, roman catholic women! Standing in line to kill their unborn children! Why would they do this, you ask? Twelve children and a depression, and husbands that wanted to fuck, but refused to use birth control, that's why! She was quickly shut down and thrown in jail. She served her time, got out of jail, and started up again. She was thrown in jail again. she did this over and over again, until the political climate changed. It's really a fascinating story. The point is, A woman, as the carrier of the child, has a right to decide if that child can use her body to survive. Once the child can survive without the woman serving as an incubator, it's a different story. Do you know what the term "86" means? It means to throw someone out, as in "86 this guy from the bar, he's drunk and belligerent". So I ask you, are you for 86? It's a lost cause Crimson Rage, and all you other prolifers out there. get off it. The vast majority of women want the right to control what grows in their bodies, and they want the right to "shut off the tap" if they are unprepared to be decent parents. You lost. Move on. Even if, by some strange twist of fate, Bush won the election, and overturned Roe V Wade, you'd see quickfast what people are capable of when they get off their fucking asses and out into the street. If Roe V Wade ever got overturned, and abortion was made illegal, the women in this counrty would rip it a new asshole. Remember, "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Can Also Cradle A Rock!!!" Venceremos!
Avid Fan by spenworks	Oct 6th, 2000 12:00:20 PM
Are you a little angry, avidfan? Well, guess what? You're going to lose. Look, you angry ignorant little boy, I was just stating facts about Margaret Sanger. Go ahead, you and your republican friends try and take abortion rights away, see what people do. Real good idea, give people a cause to mobilize under. You are an evil republican bastard, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. I never said I didn't believe in God, but you just assume that I don't. As far as people who try and kill each other with rocks are animals, is that what you are trying to imply? Are you brain dead and not paying attention to what's going on in the world? What rock have you been hiding under? You are a farce. And everything that I said was true. And you white, male bigot, you will lose. As far as polls go, and the election, are you gonna cry when that coke fiend bastard loses? Man there is a lot of ignorance in the world. Venceremos!
Oh, but she DID admire Hitler..... by crimsonrage	Oct 6th, 2000 12:50:46 PM
.....She even uses Hitler's terminology when describing the babies in their mother's wombs. She refers to them as a 'virus' on the mother's body, as Hitler described Jews as a /virus' on the German society. Oh, she had orgies so she couldn't have been a fascist, right? Right? Lets talk about a man who had illicit sex, was an artist, supported gun control in his country, and was a vegetarian. He sounds like a liberal, eh? Well guess what his name was Adolf Hitler! What? WHAT? And killing a child is murder whether the government permits or not. According to Webster's wonderful logic the Holocaust was not murder because the gov. permitted it, or what about Tienimen (spelling?) Square? You guys are just full of B.S. but you're so deep in it that it covers your eyes. Wallow in your orgies of stupidity and choke on your liberal P.C. crap.
avidfan by spenworks	Oct 6th, 2000 03:07:36 PM
My last response was lame, it's true. After I read it I admit it. Even my wife thought it was lame. I didn't put a lot of thought into it. I just reacted and baited. I would like to point out that Judaism is not a race, it's a religion. There are white jews and there are black jews and there are latino jews, there may even be asian jews for all I know. Me? Currently I have no money in my pocket, about a thousand dollars worth of credit, I wait tables for a living. And you're the one telling 125 million women how to live not me, I'm telling you that you have absolutely NO SAY in what they do with their bodies. Man, you are backwards. Who's telling who what, here?
"Pocket Morality" Huh? by spenworks	Oct 6th, 2000 06:25:00 PM
]What the fuck is "pocket morality"? You make broad, gross generalizations about me, liberals in general, White people, poor people, under educated minority teenage girls, rich people, any one I missed? You go on to say "there are good ones out there". Good "whats"? White people? Liberals? How very generous of you. You know they're out there, you just don't have any as friends. Are you suggesting that I don't have a valid reason for believing what I believe? Do you have the gaul to suggest the women's movement is merely "trendy"? Women dying in back alley abortions is not a valid reason, and merely "trendy"? Would you prefer that we, as a country, go back to a time when women put their own lives at risk by poking coathangers up into themselves? Would that be alright with you? As far as brutality goes, I'd be curious to see how you feel about the death penalty, or operation Desert Storm, or Hiroshima, or the meat industry (I'm not a vegetarian, so don't even go there). People tend to decry brutality, unless it suits their needs. Where do you stand on that?
Whoa, wait a minute...this isn't a Star Wars talkback, is it? by Andy Travis	Oct 7th, 2000 06:51:38 AM
It's about a mean-spirited. And subjective.
avid fan states abortion should not be illegal! by spenworks	Oct 9th, 2000 02:26:22 AM
1: I didn't say or ask anything about your abortion statistics. 2: I know all about the bombing of Dresden. I used Hiroshima as an example purely because of the savage nature of a single blow, also because there is an arguable school of thought that says Fatman & Littleboy were simply exclamation marks to end the war, and Japan was no longer a threat as they had no more airpower due to all of the kamakazi pilots killing themselves. I assume we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki because we wanted a decisive victory. War is hell. 3: I try to state facts as I know them (I don't know everything, but I'm pretty decently educated and a critical thinker, if I do say so myself). As far as party politics go, I'm waaayyy to the left of the democratic party as it currently stands (I'm thinking of declaring myself a commie just to fuck with people). 4: This "Pocket Morality" thing is total BS. I assure you I don't jump on bandwagons. I burn them down. If the bandwagon is strong enough to withstand my assault, then.... we can talk. 5: With regard to my "White", "liberal" response. Dude, you opened yourself up for that one, just like I opened myself up by assuming you were white, and not Sicilian. 6: I'm glad we agree that abortion should't be illegal. We are making progress here. I'll stop using the numbers here because you touched on something very interesting here. The morality of killing. I've thought long and hard on this the past couple of days. I had discussions with my wife about it (who grew up in a very pro life household), and I've come to the conclusion that there is no universal morality, there is only subjective personal morality. (side note: It seems that most pro-lifers are for the death penalty, and most pro-choicers are against the death penalty, interesting, eh?) Anyone claiming to have absolute moral authority on the subject of killing is mistaken, myself included. I think abortion is necessary even if I admit it is killing an unborn child, I just have the opinion that the rights of the woman supercedes the rights of the unborn child. I was wishy-washy on the death penalty until recently. There certainly is a vengeful sort of joy that comes from retribution. The thing that changed my mind was learning how many innocent people are put to death. I am friends with the president of the Human Rights Watch, so I get, like, 20 press releases a day about atrocities committed aroud the world, so I am just a leeetle bit knowledgeable on the subject. I eat meat, I love meat. The meat industry is the price we pay to be able to buy packaged meat at the grocery store.... doesn't mean it isn't damnable. As far as Desert Storm goes, I firmly believe that if the US really wanted Saddam Hussein dead, he'd be dead. End of story. It was about protecting oil reserves, and a fat lot of good it did us, if you look at the current gas prices. I completely agree with you that abortion is brutal and ugly. It is also psychologically damaging to the woman. That being said, what alternative do we have? The best answer is education. Teach people well. Bring them out of poverty, and the birth rates will go down. What happened to your friend is sad, and I feel sorry for her. I know that has to hurt. Can you guarantee me that her life would be better, worse, different if she had had 4 children? (by the way, contraception only works before the act. I can guarantee you that if abortion became illegal, we would see a rise in dangerous home abortions). Guess what, everyone doesn't teach their kids about this stuff, and if you are implying that they should, and bringing that baby to term is some sort of punishment for ignorance, then I say, "There you go again!" But clearly you'll claim that's not what you meant. And you might call me an idiot for reading that into it. So I ask you to clarify what you meant by that statement. I know there are good liberals out there. I'm one of the good ones. I read up on subjects, I debate with people, I listen for information that bolster my case, and if someone can convince me that they have something worth saying and can convince me I'm wrong, I humbly shut up and listen. Which is why I'm responding to your latest response. I'm starting to like you. You have a big mouth, you don't shut up, and you seem to insist on having the last word, just like me. That's admirable. Plus, once we get past the kneejerk bullshit, you seem like a decent human being. But... I recognize reactionary bullshit when I smell it. I still think crimsonrage's posts about Planned Parenthood were idiotic. He was using dark facts about a woman (we all have dark facts) to discredit the good she's done, which is a bullshit, reactionary maneuver (it's also a poor debating technique, when the real facts are at you fingertips on the internet) Margaret Sanger was all about birth control, before abortion. And his implication that she supported the holocaust (and that WAS his implication, even though he only said she supported Hitler), and that Planned Parenthood was all about wiping out the Blacks and the Jews is dumb. Dumb and wrong. If you're really into doing research, go to Yahoo, and type in "Maragret Sanger Eugenics", and see what comes up. You'll get articles that tell all about the good and the bad. By the way, did you see the "Debate" on SNL, pretty fuckin' funny.
Fuck Bush. by AllPowerfulWizardOfOz	Sep 26th, 2008 12:34:36 PM
I just had to post it. Election stolen and look where we are now.

Talkbacks

Debate Talkback!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks