|
CE 7
Oct 5, 2004 23:29:51 GMT -5
Post by stratman19 on Oct 5, 2004 23:29:51 GMT -5
but CBS's poll of undecided voters immediately following the debate gave a huge edge to edwards as the winner - it was like 42 to 29 (the rest said tie) and the edge was very very pronounced among women in particular.Was that a real poll, or a fabricated one? Mary, this country is very polarized. I hate the Left. If Kerry is elected, I will steel myself to 4 years (I hope that's all) of misery, appeasement, weakness, and tax hikes. I do agree with you tho'...this debate was far more substantive.
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 5, 2004 23:35:35 GMT -5
Post by Proud on Oct 5, 2004 23:35:35 GMT -5
well, after watching the debate, i have a few points to make... a few points that i believe are accurate, anyway...
a) Dick Cheney is a very bright man. very devious and selfish, but extremely intelligent. i admire his quick wit and calm demeanor. calm demeanor in most cases, anyway.
b) both Dick Cheney and John Edwards, imo, played the "name calling" game. it was kind of stomach turning. it was more or less "i screwed up, but he screwed up worse!". okay John, "the best offense is a good defense"... but please. don't point the finger at the other guy all the time. defend yourself. talk about your own votes and views, please.
c) i think it was somewhat of a draw, but if i was to pick a winner, i'd say Dick Cheney. Cheney appeared calm and collected, while Edwards got red in the face at times and showed the naivity that i always thought he had (though i think he's a good man and i agree with him on a lot of issues, anyway... i think, a few years down the road, he'll mature as a politician).
d) i don't think this debate will have much impact on who gets selected president, or vice president, for that matter. wait for the upcoming Bush vs. Kerry debates for ones that are truly important.
e) i was bored as hell by this debate. *shrugs* i kept zoning out, especially when Cheney was speaking.
f) Dick Cheney could've been flawless and people still wouldn't like him. people don't trust Dick Cheney. they never did and never will.
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 5, 2004 23:46:08 GMT -5
Post by Mary on Oct 5, 2004 23:46:08 GMT -5
e) i was bored as hell by this debate. *shrugs* i kept zoning out, especially when Cheney was speaking. If you spent half the debate zoned out, then how on earth do you propose to evaluate who performed better? You admired Cheney's "quick wit" while you...were sleeping through his comments? stratman, I agree about the polarization in this country but as I've said before, for me it just feels more like alienation. I say this with sadness, but I find less and less to identify with in this country as the bush administration drags on. I know that a lot of disenchanted voters often talk a big game about leaving the country if so-and-so gets elected or re-elected, but I do know that i am going to look very seriously into the academic job market in canada and england when i'm on the market next year, if bush gets re-elected. This is not just (or even primarily) about iraq, but about such a deep philosophical and ideological difference that I am starting to feel like staying here is being complicit in something that is antithetical to all of my principles. M
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 5, 2004 23:47:20 GMT -5
Post by Proud on Oct 5, 2004 23:47:20 GMT -5
i don't know where that half number came from, but alright. yeah, he's witty, but i still think he's boring. it's like being preached to by a dull college professor.
zzz.
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 0:11:03 GMT -5
Post by melon1 on Oct 6, 2004 0:11:03 GMT -5
people don't trust Dick Cheney. they never did and never will.
Speak for yourself, lefty.
Mary,
I daresay your disgust and fatigue with Bush is not of the caliber that mine was when Clinton was re-elected in '96. I mean utter disgust. There's a difference between having the President on your side and having the President and media on your side(ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MTV, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Rolling Stone, SNL, movie after movie etc. etc.). During the Clinton years political correctness skyrocketed and made into a nation of tightasses who didn't want to offend anyone. And now while Bush is in office you still have the media, for the most part, still on your side. At least you can surround yourself with that to comfort yourself and vent some of your frustrations. During the Clinton years we had Rush Limbaugh, who is obviously an arrogant asshole no matter how much I agree with him, and The O'Reilly Factor, which was actually censored from cable in most of the country until Clinton was almost out of office. And if you listened to that stuff and ignored all the leftist propoganda, your existence was pretty alienated except for your few friends that agreed with you, mostly at your church.
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 0:18:13 GMT -5
Post by Proud on Oct 6, 2004 0:18:13 GMT -5
"Speak for yourself, lefty."
as dan quayle might say, that was uncalled for. also, if you're inferring that i'm an extreme leftist, you've got the wrong guy. indeed i tend to agree with the left more than the right, but i do not turn a deaf ear to those on the other side of the political spectrum. but i digress.
enjoy the debates, enjoy exercising your democratic rights. maybe fire off at others a little. but remember ultimately that our motives are noble and our cause, in a sense, is common.
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 0:50:12 GMT -5
Post by melon1 on Oct 6, 2004 0:50:12 GMT -5
if you're inferring that i'm an extreme leftist, you've got the wrong guy
Yeah, I meant that. Couldn't have been simply implying that you're left of center.
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 1:06:32 GMT -5
Post by melon1 on Oct 6, 2004 1:06:32 GMT -5
I've been turning this thought over in my head for some time now: I'm wondering if there's a large group of voters who want Kerry to win simply because Bush's demeanor embarrases them as Americans. I can certainly identify with this. He doesn't appear bright. He seems unsure of himself and easily intimidated. He talks confident and tries to portray himself as confident but I can't help but think that he's not and that it's all superficial. I could be totally wrong here and I'm sure Chrisfan will probably disagree w/ me on that point. Bush just happens to be President during the time of easily offended politically correct whiners. He doesn't have the presence of say, Tom Delay or Ronald Reagan, who could give a rip what their ideological opposites think of them. THAT'S the kind of President I want. But Bush will have to do. Hell, his policies are so balanced we couldn't asked for a more balanced administration. But as far as his presence/demeanor goes, he's out of place as a president. I remember Jenine Garafelo(sp?) saying that when she watches Bush make a speech she feels like she is cheering on her son in a school play thinking all the while,"You're doing good. Please God, don't let him stutter or mess up. Remember your lines, honey." I can understand where she's coming from totally even though I am her ideological opposite. However, I think it is a drastic mistake for anyone to vote for the snake, Kerry, or just the Democratic Party in general because of what I've mentioned about Bush. I'd rather be embarrased and closer to God than quite proud of myself while making a deal with the devil.
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 1:07:18 GMT -5
Post by Mary on Oct 6, 2004 1:07:18 GMT -5
Melon, if you think either the media or Bill Clinton was on "my" side, the you just aren't very familiar with my beliefs. There are many ways in which Bill Clinton's presidency was more disillusioning for me than George Bush's - because I never had any identification with Bush to begin with, whereas Clinton ensured that my formative political experience as a young adult was one of completely shattered faith. In high school I never really considered myself a serious lefty, but it was during Clinton's second term that I realized I belonged to an old style of left politics and that was and is going through a painful, protracted death rattle in this country.
But then this is precisely what I mean when I say that I feel alienated from America. The fact that you would assume that Clinton's middle-of-the-road New Democrats actually speak for me in any meaningful way just shows me how completely far off the rails I've fallen.
M
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 1:16:53 GMT -5
Post by melon1 on Oct 6, 2004 1:16:53 GMT -5
My mistake, Mary. I do remember you saying something to the effect of being excited when Clinton was running in '92. I do agree that fiscally Clinton was "middle of the road" but socially I believe he was way out in left field and that matters a great deal more to me than fiscal policy.
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 1:39:19 GMT -5
Post by Mary on Oct 6, 2004 1:39:19 GMT -5
I keep trying to respond to your post, melon, but ultimately, I just come from a position where the very distinction you are trying to make between economic and social policy betrays a deep conservatism. I think this distinction - the idea that welfare reform or the tax structure is somehow an "economic" issue and not a social issue - is perhaps the foundation of the decline of the American left. We have stopped seeing economics as itself a matter of social justice - and with that, the Old Left sinks ever further into its grave.
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 1:48:17 GMT -5
Post by melon1 on Oct 6, 2004 1:48:17 GMT -5
Mary,
Who is the ideal President, in your view, out of all that we've had in the nation's history?
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 1:50:23 GMT -5
Post by melon1 on Oct 6, 2004 1:50:23 GMT -5
And since you're back online and we're the only two online, I'll ask again,"What do you think has changed about me since the first time we met on RS discussing homosexuality back 2000?"
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 1:54:00 GMT -5
Post by Mary on Oct 6, 2004 1:54:00 GMT -5
I have no idea as to your president question, melon. I'm not a historian, and I also don't really know how to evaluate policies in a pre-industrial, pre-multicultural world. That's a totally different context.
As for what I think has changed about you, I can't answer that either, I don't really remember exactly what you were like when you first started posting - so many posters over the past few years, it's all a blur! what's with your sudden keen interest in how other posters here view you? You asked a similar question bout your musical tastes on the what are you listening to board.
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 2:01:45 GMT -5
Post by melon1 on Oct 6, 2004 2:01:45 GMT -5
As far as the post on "What are you listening to" I was wondering what others thought of my favorite bands, and if my taste was hip. If it wasn't I could care less. The reason for this question is that I've learned alot since I first started posting on RS some 4 years ago. I don't make many friends here as I don't relate to many of the posters. JLLM mentioned the other day about how RS drew punkrockers to it, so I can understand why I don't relate to most as far as politics and spirituality go. So I was wondering how I related to others musically. Thus the question I posed. You have always been, in my mind, the ruler of RS Boards and although I greatly disagree with you I would like to think of you as a friend but it seems that I annoy you quite a bit. I know I do and I can't help it.
|
|