http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4560969

Now when Bush refuses Kerry can point out that Bush really is hiding from
his record. If Bush doesn't debate, he looks hypocritical. If he does
debate, Kerry will eviscerate him.

From: "Sandman"
Date: 3/13/04 11:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Now when Bush refuses Kerry can point out that Bush really is hiding from
his record. If Bush doesn't debate, he looks hypocritical. If he does
debate, Kerry will eviscerate him.

Utter bull****. The guy with the most to gain always wants a debate.
Incumbents rarely accept debates because they have teh clear advantage. Kerry
is doing well at present in the polls, but with 8 months of camapaign left and
bush's warchest substantially larger than Kerry's, Bush is, like all incumbents
going to gain points.

By election day it's going to look more like Bush vs Whatsisname.

Sandman wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4560969

Now when Bush refuses Kerry can point out that Bush really is hiding from
his record. If Bush doesn't debate, he looks hypocritical. If he does
debate, Kerry will eviscerate him.

Exactly. 90 I.Q. rich boy versus a 150 I.Q.+ consumate career
statesman. Kerry will make him look like Regan did with Carter
if there is a debate.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net
Sandman wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4560969

Now when Bush refuses Kerry can point out that Bush really is hiding
from his record. If Bush doesn't debate, he looks hypocritical. If
he does debate, Kerry will eviscerate him.

This would be Democratic hype-master Sanders speaking. Should you believe
predictions of the future from a guy who still thinks that tubes rule?

Exactly. 90 I.Q. rich boy versus a 150 I.Q.+ consumate career
statesman. Kerry will make him look like Regan did with Carter
if there is a debate.

So you think that GWB has an IQ of just 90?

So you think that the respective IQs of Carter and Regan line up like that,
too?

You got one heck of a mouth on you, Obie. Just like Sanders.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Sandman wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4560969

Now when Bush refuses Kerry can point out that Bush really is hiding
from
his record. If Bush doesn't debate, he looks hypocritical. If he does
debate, Kerry will eviscerate him.

Exactly. 90 I.Q. rich boy versus a 150 I.Q.+ consumate career
statesman. Kerry will make him look like Regan did with Carter
if there is a debate.


And who won?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

And who won?


The acter.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Socky demonstrates why "conservatives" are such a brain trust.

Exactly. 90 I.Q. rich boy versus a 150 I.Q.+ consumate career
statesman. Kerry will make him look like Regan did with Carter
if there is a debate.

And who won?

The one who hadn't made a huge mess of relations with Iran and the
economy.




Right - Reagan




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


duh-Socky menstruates over nothing.

Socky demonstrates why "conservatives" are such a brain trust.

Exactly. 90 I.Q. rich boy versus a 150 I.Q.+ consumate career
statesman. Kerry will make him look like Regan did with Carter
if there is a debate.

And who won?

The one who hadn't made a huge mess of relations with Iran and the
economy.

Right - Reagan

But not because of his dismal "debate" performance, nimrod.


Excellent point! I knew you would come through for me.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Socky steps on his own landmine.

But not because of his dismal "debate" performance, nimrod.

Excellent point! I knew you would come through for me.

The real reason you voted for Reagan was because he said "those
people" shouldn't be allowed to play romantic leads. I'll bet you
voted for Perot too.


Wrong again.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net

Sandman wrote:


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4560969


Now when Bush refuses Kerry can point out that Bush really is hiding
from his record. If Bush doesn't debate, he looks hypocritical. If
he does debate, Kerry will eviscerate him.

This would be Democratic hype-master Sanders speaking. Should you believe
predictions of the future from a guy who still thinks that tubes rule?

No, but I've heard Kerry. He's a slick as they come Senator who
can wrap almost anything to spin his way on the fly. Exactly
the person you never really want to go up against unless you
are either squeeky clean or better at it than he is.

Exactly. 90 I.Q. rich boy versus a 150 I.Q.+ consumate career
statesman. Kerry will make him look like Regan did with Carter
if there is a debate.

So you think that GWB has an IQ of just 90?

That would be my educated guess. Drugs kill off brain cells,
afterall.

So you think that the respective IQs of Carter and Regan line up like that,
too?

No, actually, Carter was smarter than Regan - but in a debate,
he wasn't the ex-SAG president and career politician that
Regan was. Like comparing you to Yustabe - poor Yustabe's
at such a disadvantage going in based upon his debating
skills that even when he gets it right, it almost always
sounds wrong.

Bush so far has a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease and
bumbling-idiot-commentism. Kerry's going to bait him
again and again in a debate and make him completely
fall apart. Then Kerry's going to spit out exact data
and plans versus Bush's soundbyte retorts.

It's going to be the best comedy show in ages. The
master debater versus the soundbyte kid.

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

Exactly. 90 I.Q. rich boy versus a 150 I.Q.+ consumate career
statesman. Kerry will make him look like Regan did with Carter
if there is a debate.



And who won?

You missed my point. It was that the superior debater won.

The I.Q. was another comment on the situation.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Arny Krueger wrote:


No, but I've heard Kerry. He's a slick as they come Senator who
can wrap almost anything to spin his way on the fly. Exactly
the person you never really want to go up against unless you
are either squeeky clean or better at it than he is.


In some ways, he reminds me of Arny.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

Exactly. 90 I.Q. rich boy versus a 150 I.Q.+ consumate career
statesman. Kerry will make him look like Regan did with Carter
if there is a debate.



And who won?

You missed my point. It was that the superior debater won.

The I.Q. was another comment on the situation.


You missed my point, the 'winner' of the debate didn't win the election.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Joseph Oberlander said:

So you think that the respective IQs of Carter and Regan line up like that,
too?

No, actually, Carter was smarter than Regan - but in a debate,
he wasn't the ex-SAG president and career politician that
Regan was.

Maybe, but at least pay him respect by writing his name right: Reagan.

So there!

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Socky said:

And who won?

You missed my point. It was that the superior debater won.

You missed my point, the 'winner' of the debate didn't win the election.

Some people think Reagan won with his facile one-liners like "There
you go again!"

But you're right as far as the serious side of the debate. Reagan
looked like a clown. Carter's superior rhetorical skills couldn't
overcome his dismal performance in office.


I don't really remember who won the debate. I don't
remember much about it at all.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Mr. Middius said:

Socky said:

And who won?

You missed my point. It was that the superior debater won.

You missed my point, the 'winner' of the debate didn't win the election.

Some people think Reagan won with his facile one-liners like "There
you go again!"

But you're right as far as the serious side of the debate. Reagan
looked like a clown. Carter's superior rhetorical skills couldn't
overcome his dismal performance in office.

Sadly enough, Carter was too good of a man, too altruistic, to be a good
president. He has made up for it, however, by being the best former president
we've ever had.

Boon

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Mr. Middius said:

Socky said:

And who won?

You missed my point. It was that the superior debater won.

You missed my point, the 'winner' of the debate didn't win the
election.

Some people think Reagan won with his facile one-liners like "There
you go again!"

But you're right as far as the serious side of the debate. Reagan
looked like a clown. Carter's superior rhetorical skills couldn't
overcome his dismal performance in office.

Sadly enough, Carter was too good of a man, too altruistic, to be a good
president. He has made up for it, however, by being the best former
president
we've ever had.


Oh yeah, Carter, the man who appointed
Ramsey Clark to be Attorney General.
He was the worst President of my lifetime.
I guess you consider a propensity
to 'give away the farm' as being altruistic.
Problem was, he was all to willing to give away
what was 'ours' and not just 'his'.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Socky said:

And who won?

You missed my point. It was that the superior debater won.

You missed my point, the 'winner' of the debate didn't win the election.

Some people think Reagan won with his facile one-liners like "There
you go again!"

But you're right as far as the serious side of the debate. Reagan
looked like a clown. Carter's superior rhetorical skills couldn't
overcome his dismal performance in office.

Actually, as I recall it, there was only *one* reason Reagan beat Carter:
the Iran Hostage Crisis mess Carter didn't seem to know how to handle
without humiliating himself with that desert debacle. The Ayatollah viewed
Reagan as a madman who wouldn't hesitate to drop the big one, and sure
enough, released the hostages as soon as Reagan was sworn in.

The election that year had nothing to do with debate performances. Reagan
won because the media kept talking for months leading up to the election
about how the Ayatollah had no respect for Carter but was scared ****less
Reagan would go berserk with the nuclear button at his fingertips. Never
mind that he said trees were the worst cause of air pollution. Never mind
that he said ketchup was a vegetable. It was all about the BOMB.

This year it's going to be a *lot* different. As I said, all Kerry has to
do is toss Bush a pretzel and challenge him to a Sedway race. Perhaps he
could also challenge Bush to repeat 10 times, as fast as he can: "she sells
sea shells by the sea shore". :0)~

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Socky said:

And who won?

You missed my point. It was that the superior debater won.

You missed my point, the 'winner' of the debate didn't win the
election.

Some people think Reagan won with his facile one-liners like "There
you go again!"

But you're right as far as the serious side of the debate. Reagan
looked like a clown. Carter's superior rhetorical skills couldn't
overcome his dismal performance in office.

Actually, as I recall it, there was only *one* reason Reagan beat Carter:
the Iran Hostage Crisis mess Carter didn't seem to know how to handle
without humiliating himself with that desert debacle.

That, and the economy.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---