On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:42:55 -0400, JimH wrote:


Mopped the floor? Perhaps on style but not on substance. I guess the
former is more important to you, as it is apparently to those who think
that Kerry "mopped the floor" with Bush. Did you actually *listen* to
what the candidates said Chuck?

Not only did I listen, I read the transcript. One would think that
"substance" would come through in a transcript, it doesn't. Bush lost on
style and substance.

The transcript:

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=3572

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 05 Oct 2004 16:11:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

The latest Rasmussen robot tracking poll shows Bush ahead by a
point...yesterday, Bush was ahead by three or four points. Generally,
Bush's "lead" in most of the polls has evaporated or has shrunk to
within the margin of error.

If Kerry and Edwards dominate the rest of the debates in the same manner
that
Kerry
mopped the floor with Bush in the first one,
and if that turns the trend around and brings about a vote for change, my
cynical opinion of the general electorate will need to be modified to a
slightly more charitable position.

Can the American public see beyond the
rhetoric of the campaigns to make thoughtful, personally meaningful, and
conscientous choices? Will information triumph over disinformation? Even
an
independent like myself can find some high drama in a partisan election.
:-)

Chuck, is it your opinion that basing a decision on a debate is more or
less
thoughtful, meaningful, and conscientious?

Disinformation, like the liebrals claims about Haliburton, the economy,
that Iragq is a 'disaster'?


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

There are 10 kinds of people in the world,
those who do binary and those who don't!

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:42:55 -0400, JimH wrote:


Mopped the floor? Perhaps on style but not on substance. I guess the
former is more important to you, as it is apparently to those who think
that Kerry "mopped the floor" with Bush. Did you actually *listen* to
what the candidates said Chuck?

Not only did I listen, I read the transcript. One would think that
"substance" would come through in a transcript, it doesn't. Bush lost on
style and substance.

The transcript:

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=3572

I almost always read the transcripts when Bush "speaks," because he is
such an awful speaker. But there's nothing in the transcript that saves
Bush in terms of content. Did you count the number of times he said or
tried to say "mixed messages?"

Bush's "style" has to do with his perceived affability. But during the
debate, he wasn't affable. There was nothing left.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:42:55 -0400, JimH wrote:


Mopped the floor? Perhaps on style but not on substance. I guess the
former is more important to you, as it is apparently to those who think
that Kerry "mopped the floor" with Bush. Did you actually *listen* to
what the candidates said Chuck?

Not only did I listen, I read the transcript. One would think that
"substance" would come through in a transcript, it doesn't. Bush lost on
style and substance.

The transcript:

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=3572


By the way, Bush's performance in that kind of venue is why Dick Cheney
was sitting next to him during the 9-11 hearings. Bush is incapable of
sounding intelligent in a formal Q&A setting.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Disinformation, like the liebrals claims about Haliburton, the economy,
that Iragq is a 'disaster'?

So, let's see he

Private contractors, (chiefly Haliburton) are *not* pocketing 25-30% of
our
total defense budget.

So? Do you know that private contractors pocket the majority of NASA's
budget?

And who is better qualified than Haliburton? Clinton thought they were the
best as he awarded them numerous no bid contracts.

And your point is?