PDA

View Full Version : Non-Football: Anybody watch the debates last night?


Pages : [1] 2

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 09:08 AM
I remember the richest 1% of us use fuzzy math while inside a lockbox... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif



[This message has been edited by TheFly (edited 10-04-2000).]

htismaqe
10-04-2000, 09:10 AM
Hey, I remember that!

Luz
and we've been in that lock box for seven years...

DaKCMan AP
10-04-2000, 09:11 AM
I just know that if Gore gets elected I might get a tax break in another 19 years when my kid goes to college. WhooHoo! now I have something to look forward to.

Morphius
Still wants to know the def of middle class.

htismaqe
10-04-2000, 09:15 AM
morphius,

It's whatever you aint.

Luz
translating gorespeak...<BR>

DaKCMan AP
10-04-2000, 09:17 AM
Luz - I was guessing it was someone making around 26 grand a year, you know the big money makers in the country.

Morphius
Gore makes me feel like upper middle class, my life OTOH does not.

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 09:19 AM
Didnt watch it, but I can guess the story line.

Gore: He wants to take all the money and give it to the RICH! He also wants to starve kids, make the elderly choose between drugs or food, and confiscate all the money from the middle class.

Bush: I do not.

dallaschiefsfan
10-04-2000, 09:20 AM
It was like watching children fight over the same toy. In a nutshell, blah blah blah blah blah blah.... The numbers do not add up on either side, nice...

htismaqe
10-04-2000, 09:27 AM
Gregg,

Actually, it was more substantive than I expected it to be.

Bush actually got in some good licks!

I personally believe that appearances are more important in these things than what is actually said (unfortunately) and Gore probably looked more 'Presidential'.

Bush, on the other hand, seemed sincere and effectively labeled Gore as a 'tax and spend' liberal that makes a lot of promises and doesn't deliver! ~ larges planned budget increase in history, will appoint liberal Supreme Court judges, has been promising these same things (Medicare & SS reform) for seven years and still hasn't done them...

A much better debate than I expected.

Luz
the real fireworks will be the vps on thursday...

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 09:27 AM
It was more like:

Gore: What ya doin bro?
Bush: Nothin. Just watchin' the Cheifs and havin' a Bud...
Gore: True....
Bush: Whazzup!
Gore: WHAZZUP!
Lehrer: WHAZZUP!<BR>

DaKCMan AP
10-04-2000, 09:29 AM
Gores best line, paraphrased to a minor degree, "I don't think we should use personal attack's on scandel's and such things, and I'm going to be the bigger man and not talk about such things."

I found that really damn funny, I have no good scandle's to talk about you so I will take the higher ground. Nothing like going out on a limb.

Thought the parts I did watch were pretty lame for both guys.

DaKCMan AP
10-04-2000, 09:33 AM
Luz - I think it would have been great for Bush to make a comment about all the sighs that Gore let out everytime he talked about him. I think a comment along the lines of, is that the same way you act when you are talking to foreign leader when they give you their opinion, are you really that condesending to everyone, or is that just an act for TV? Just a thought.

Lurker Brett
10-04-2000, 09:36 AM
I think Lehrer let Gore break the rules of debate too much. Gore broke into Bush's time several times and Lehrer let it happen.

If I was Bush I'd carry a squirt gun in my pocket and blast him with water the first time he interrupted me.

[This message has been edited by mlyonsd (edited 10-04-2000).]

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 09:40 AM
I like Bush's "You have no credibility on this issue" concerning campaign finance reform... Right on the mark...

And Gore's straight-faced lie that his kids went to public school... They never did.

And Gore's FEMA credit stealing when he said he was with FEMA in Texas during the floods...

Is this guy Mr.MeToo or what...

And the story about the little girl standing in class because of no place to sit was a total fabrication...

Yep, seems to me Al Gore is well equipped to assume the mantel of the Lincoln Bedroom...<BR>

htismaqe
10-04-2000, 09:42 AM
morphius,

Great rejoinder!

I found myself on several occasions wishing that it was I debating Gore...

When Gore made his disruptive commemtaries about Russia already having a different stance, I would have said, "that's right Al, with your leadership we can't get them to do anything we want them to. If they were dealing with a US administration they could trust, perhaps it would be different."

I also wanted Bush to hammer home that America is tired of fancy politicians conducting business as usual in Washington.

Everytime Gore started talking about more government spending Bush could have asked if this was more Washington promises and then used his 'fuzzy math' line to put Gore on the spot asking him how he's going to do all these things without RAISING taxes.

THEN when Gore said he wouldn't raise taxes, Bush could have asked why anyone should believe this Washington-speak when the middle class is STILL waiting on the tax cut he promised eight years ago!

Luz
getting wound up...


[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 10-04-2000).]

redbrian
10-04-2000, 09:43 AM
It would be nice to hear an actual answer to one of the questions, rather than the endless babble we were subjected to.

I got so sick of hearing about what they're promising to "do" for the American people. At least past candidates (Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Dole) actually seemed sincere when they were lying to us. I could almost smell the BS coming through my TV last night.

Fort Chief
10-04-2000, 09:44 AM
It was obvious that Gore was definitely more prepared, more informed, more articulate and more intelligent.

Bush stumbled over words had a limited vocabulary and was often left standing for seconds at time trying to think of an appropriate answer.

redbrian
10-04-2000, 09:44 AM
One more thing...NEITHER candidate was obvious "winner" last night.

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 09:46 AM
I agree with Cannibal... I'm SICK of the promises of what they'll DO for me... I really wish they'd do nothing but NOT screw up, NOT create new programs, NOT raise taxes, and NOT promise everyone a chicken in every pot.<BR>

htismaqe
10-04-2000, 09:48 AM
TheFly,

Touche`!

Luz
just wanting the government to leave us alone...<BR>

DaKCMan AP
10-04-2000, 09:49 AM
Clint - I agree, there was no clear winner. They both probably kept both their sides happy and that was about it.

Bwana
10-04-2000, 09:51 AM
I laughed out loud when Gore told that story about the girl having to stand up during her chemistry class. What a bunch of crap. I'd be willing to bet that the chemistry class she's in is a lab class and everyone is standing up for the full class. Yes, there might be 37 students and only 36 desks, but everyone is at the lab tables and no one is sitting in the desks. I find it hard to believe that any student would have to stand up for the entire class because there is no room for one more desk. Why doesn't she pull a chair up to another desk and share with another student. Or use the teacher's desk?

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-04-2000, 09:57 AM
The way it could have been:

AG: He is going to take 1of every 6 dollars from all of you ol' folk and use it to buy clubs to beat you down...and mulch the lawns of the top 1% of the richest guys in the country...you know who they are, the guys I play golf with and let rent Abes room on cigar night.

W: Thats just not so, I'm giving money to everyone...we're going to be beating people with the blocks of free cheese that I plan on taking away from all you poor folks...down in texas, you just have to get a job...like my daddy said..

AG: well my daddy was 2" taller than your dad.

W: but your daddy was so fat he couldn't even

AG: ITs not politically correct to make fun of over eater americans. so naaaaaaaa

W: That kiss you gave your wife the other day was reallly cute...i'll bet she learned how to use her tongue like that from Billy.

AG: ITs ok, As a liberal, we are supposed to share, and they used environmentally friendly condoms.

W: well she is so fat, her legs look like she got beat with a sack of Indian nickles...

BLAM BLIFF BLAMMMM whack.......

break em up boys
ag: dummy
W: I know ya are but what am I

blah blah blah

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 09:57 AM
Cannibal: obviously, since they've got a spy in the Bush campaign, they knew how to respond to his assertions.

I dont watch these things because there's really nothing said.

The 'brass ring' in this election is the victor will get to pick approx 3 Supreme Court justices and therefore will actually affect the lives of at least 3 generations of Americans.

CASHMAN
10-04-2000, 09:59 AM
I was hoping you guys would talk about the debate. I'm a democrat b/c my entire family is democratic, my grandfather was a mayor for 12 years, worked for Senators, etc.

I thought they both acted like li'l whiners at times. Someone mentioned Gore's 'sighs', well, Bush would make weird lip expressions and he tried to crack a joke twice and it failed.

I think Gore is more polished and I think he knew more about Bush's plans than Bush did about Gore's plans.

I did find it funny that Bush used 'mediscare' and then said "Not only did he invent the internet, he invented the calculator." Pretty funny.

Gore did jump in and say "I agree with Bush on these issues and as a matter of fact I pushed them through congress" (paraphrasing) quite a few times. I thought he should have left that alone. He is a credit stealer.

Nonetheless, I like watching a train wreck as two kids fight. Actually, I kept waiting for the lights to go down, and theme music to play as Ventura took the stage to add his views. :-) Sorry, that's the wrestling fan in me.

I think it's silly to say one of them was a winner. Although, Bush did at times stumble for the right word(s) and he appeared out of his element. Exactly what Gore wanted.

I think they both were able to 'label' the other, but I thought it was pretty lame for Bush to try and connect Gore to Clintons 'ethical mistakes' in the White House. People are tired of hearing that and if he sticks to it, people will grow tired of it quickly.

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 10:02 AM
I thought Gore knew all the topics inside out but was very overbearing in his presentation with all the interuptions and point pushing. I thought Bush was unprepared for a few of the topics and not on top of the ball all the time, and thus he was very passive on some issues. Personally I thought the "fuzzy math" and "scare tactics" lines were weak, people who respond like that either don't know the numbers to deny the charges, or can't deny the charges. Basically what he is saying in that regard is "Don't believe homeboy here, he don't know what he's sayin, but I do, I can't tell you why, but trust me and not him."

I also thought Bush got smacked around when it came to foreign policy. Gore came across as being much more competent and experienced there. I did find myself thinking though "hmm, do I want my president to sit across from foreign leaders and bore them to death or pronounce their name wrong."

Bush did a good job in relating to average Joe I thought. He kept things simple and didn't get into long, drawn out answers like Gore. I think that appealed to a lot of people who don't want to be bored by the president. I think he won a lot of sympathy votes for people who thought Gore was being the "overbearing, nerdy bully."

Frankly I think that this debate didn't do much to change too many minds. Both guys have problems. Their respective backers probably thought their guy won. If someone was leaning towards Bush maybe this debate moved them more towards Bush and vice versa for those leaning towards Gore. We'll see how the polls look today...

redbrian
10-04-2000, 10:03 AM
That "spy" story is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It brings back memories of Ross Perot's paranoid ramblings.

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 10:04 AM
Dumb to you cause it happened, I guess.

The Gore team did receive documents and a tape, they admitted it. You're not going to sit there and try to tell me they didnt take a little peek before sending the docs to the FBI?

Please.

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 10:06 AM
Gore was better prepared, but he also fabricated a LOT of stuff... So if he's a good debater who makes up stuff does that mean that he'll be a good president who makes up stuff and outright lies to the American people?

Bush was sincere and straight shooting. He did stumble over words, but he didn't make up stories about his mother's drugs, the child standing in the classroom, Love Story, or the Internet...

I can tell a liar folks... And I will not knowingly put a liar in the White House...<BR>

htismaqe
10-04-2000, 10:07 AM
Mile High Mania,

I agree with most of what you said, but I have to point out something.

Thety were talking about Gore's illegal activeties in the White house - not Clinton's.

Gore was hip deep in the illegal campaign fund raising going on over there (and that's been proven).

Don't buy the liberal spin that 'that was Clinton, Gore is different'.

Luz
just setting the recoprd straight...<BR>

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 10:08 AM
DEBATE BACKFIRE: GORE CAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL FIB? PRINCIPAL SAYS 'NEW LAB EQUIPMENT' CAUSED CLASS CRUNCH

Vice President Al Gore was caught in a High School fib during Tuesday night's nationally televised presidential debate when he claimed a Florida public school was so overcrowded a student was forced to stand during science class!

"They can't squeeze another desk in for her so she has to stand during class," Gore explained while telling the story of 15-year-old Kailey Ellis of Sarasota High. "I want the federal government, consistent with local control and new accountability, to make improvement of our schools the number one priority so Kailey will have a desk and can sit down in a classroom where she can learn."

Sarasota High School principal Daniel Kennedy on Wednesday morning called Gore's debate story 'misleading at best'.

"His facts are inacurate," Kennedy declared on WFLA 970 am in Tampa. "There was $100,000 worth of lab equipment waiting to be unpacked in the room, that's why the room was crowded. We have no students standing." <BR>

CASHMAN
10-04-2000, 10:09 AM
Fly ... I'm not saying that Gore is an angel, but if you think Bush is the most responsible and upstanding choice, then you're nuts.

I doubt that there are any candidates out there without some skeletons in their closets. It's the lesser of two evils.

Fort Chief
10-04-2000, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>I think Gore is more polished and I think he knew more about Bush's plans than Bush did about Gore's plans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mile High,

I agree and I'll take it a step further...

Gore new more about Bush's plans than Bush himself did.

I'm not saying that the Republican view necessarily wrong on some of these issues. All I'm saying is that the Republican voters got stuck with a sorry candidate.<BR>

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 10:10 AM
Now wait, how do you know that what he was saying last night was fabricated? And how do you know that Bush was being sincere? You are assuming this. IMO, Bush just didn't know the numbers to come back with. I don't call "fuzzy numbers" being sincere...

Lurker Brett
10-04-2000, 10:10 AM
LOL@#29.

Gore is his worst enemy. His best chance of being elected is to just shut up.

redbrian
10-04-2000, 10:11 AM
What a shocker. All the conservatives feel that Bush "won" the debate, & all the liberals feel that Gore "won" the debate.

It kind of reminds me of NCAA football.

CASHMAN
10-04-2000, 10:11 AM
Luzap, I agree about the fundraising stuff. But, I think Bush and some republicans still want to tie Gore to the 'intern' scandals.

"Bringing respect back to the White House"
That's what I don't like. Ok, so Clinton's a dirty li'l bastard. Fine - he's out and Gore shouldn't have to fight that stigma.

BIG_DADDY
10-04-2000, 10:13 AM
Well, I'm sure this take will be argued by the more conservative members of the BB, but here goes:

I think Gore did a 'better' job in the debate.

Gore used repetition mixed with quantitative analysis to get his message across ("Bush is for the Rich"). I think this strategy was fairly effective and Bush seemed pinned down, unable to get as specific with his own plans or to refute Gore's 1% mantra or dollar for dollar strategy. In contrast, Bush's message seemed to focus more on generalities and the current administration. Unfortunately for Bush, he tried to focus on the current admin's policies instead of their corruption. What his advisor's don't realize is that in a good economy, people aren't likely to look at the admins policies as failures.

redbrian
10-04-2000, 10:13 AM
The Fly should be a judge...not just anyone possesses the supernatural powers necessary to spot liars at will. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Does that mean you thought Bush was being completely honest? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

htismaqe
10-04-2000, 10:14 AM
TheFly,

Thanks for that info. I was waiting for something like this to come out!

I hope Bush mops the floor with Gore on this one next week.

i also woulodn't be surprised if Lim Leahre (sp?) asked it to Gore as a question!

Luz
would love to see that...<BR>

CASHMAN
10-04-2000, 10:14 AM
I agree ... 'fuzzy numbers' and 'new math' were weak rebuttals. I was waiting for Bush to say,

"Please, ladies and gentlemen, READ MY LIPS, he's playing with numbers."

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 10:14 AM
OK, just saw your post about the high school thing. Now maybe that was over the top on his part, or maybe that is what was said in the so called letter Gore got and that's what Gore used, or the principal is just trying to cover his *** . Either way, the story really didn't strike a chord with me, and I think Gore needs to stay away from these sappy antecdotes, because they come back to bite him in the *** ...

redbrian
10-04-2000, 10:18 AM
Dishonesty?

Bush claims his campaign has been infiltrated by spies.

'Nuff said.

CASHMAN
10-04-2000, 10:18 AM
I wouldn't say that Gore was the winner last night, nothing really came out of it. As far as changing people's minds.

I think Gore was more successful at achieving his goals and I think Bush kinda fell flat. But, you can't say Gore was a winner if he wasn't able to influence any voters last night. The recent polls don't show much movement.

So, "yes" Gore looked better ... but, nothing really changed. Call it a draw.

As for the classroom deal, the Dems will just say "Well, that school is in Florida, Jeb Bush put the squeeze on that Principal to call Gore a liar."

http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

dallaschiefsfan
10-04-2000, 10:18 AM
If there is one thing I cant stand its a politician that has to make stories up just so we can stand there and go ahhhhhhh. Yeah lets do something about that. Gore came off fake, I'm better than you all with his sighs and I dont have time for you body language. Bush is no shining star either but at least he appeals to the everyday joe and that in my mind his who will decide this election.

Devin Vierth
10-04-2000, 10:19 AM
A story about the student from Florida, or the old lady from Iowa does pull on the heart strings of the uniformed public. It is a total shame that the people don't hear the true story from the poeple and just hear the sob story from Gore.

What a freakin' joke.


------------------
bk

[This message has been edited by bkkcoh (edited 10-04-2000).]

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 10:19 AM
Brad: I think that maybe that was a poor choice of words, but I dont think Bush has the time to explain the govt's useage of Baseline budgeting and referring to 'cuts' in spending when actually referring to a lower than expected increase in spending.

Probably could have thought of a better way to answer than 'fuzzy math'.

Jones: I think your right about that. The 1% mantra (tax the poor, to give to the wealthy) has been a long tested mantra of the Dems and has worked for many years. While misleading it is technically true. Since the richest 1% pay over 40% of the tax revenues, a tax cut would benefit them the most because they pay the most money. A flat tax is the only thing that would essentially nuke that argument. I dont see that happening anytime soon.

redbrian
10-04-2000, 10:19 AM
All Gore has to do is crush Bush on foreign policy issues. Bush will make a fool out of himself if he simply tries repeating names and figures that have been recently force-fed to him.

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 10:20 AM
Clint: The Gore team admitted it. You can stop defending the Gore boys.

htismaqe
10-04-2000, 10:21 AM
If the Republicans will get smart these sappy (and false) little ancedotes will cost Gore the election.

Clint, just because you don't posess this ability, pleaser don't assume that others of us don't. I have spent my whole professional life having to evaluate people rather5 quickly. It is a skill that can be learned.

Am I always right? NO.

But I am correct far more often than not.

Luz
realize that some may have skills that you don't...

CASHMAN
10-04-2000, 10:21 AM
Do you guys watch Southpark?

Instead of blaming spies, Bush should just blame it on the illusive 'underwear gnomes'.

http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

xxx000x,
wondering if a Southpark reference kills this thread

redbrian
10-04-2000, 10:22 AM
if Bush is elected, how long do you think it will take for my paycheck to increase due to lowered income taxes?

I'll be counting the days no matter who is elected.

My guess is never.

DaveC
10-04-2000, 10:22 AM
The Woodman & the Scarecrow. No heart, no brain. I'll still take the one with the brain.

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 10:23 AM
not blaming spies...all Im saying is that Gore team did get some debate prep materials from the Bush camp. Dont really care how it got to Gore's folks, but do you honestly think that they didnt peruse the information before turning it over?

I would be pissed the Rep's didnt do it, if the situation were reversed.

redbrian
10-04-2000, 10:24 AM
Luzap,

That's stupid. You don't have any more ability to spot liars than anyone else...although I'm sure that ego of yours tells you differently. If The Fly was a liberal, you would have a totally different opinion, and you certainly wouldn't be defending him/her.

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-04-2000, 10:25 AM
I'm trying to look more at fundamentals.
1. Bush doesn't scare me on foreign policy because I think that Cheney will be an excellent advisor in that area.
2. The Supreme court nominations. I used to be a little pro choice(bad for a catholic)..but i held some twin babies that were born at the end of the second trimester, and still viable for abortion...my opinion changed right there, This issue will be major with the next 3 justices decided.

3. Gore talks out of both sides of his mouth. He quickly takes credit for Postives from the Clinton era, but sidesteps any blame for the bad....you have to take both sides of the coin.

4. I watched Bush on Larry King last week, and he appears much much more intelligent on that type of atmosphere...and will do better in the next debate styles.

redbrian
10-04-2000, 10:26 AM
Then again, I could be wrong. "Salesman" is a euphamism for "liar". Maybe you can spot them.

Devin Vierth
10-04-2000, 10:26 AM
Guys, we can all spot a liar, any time a politian speaks regardless of who it is. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif




------------------
bk

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 10:26 AM
About me being the judge... I would be very fair... I can vote for an honest man, liberal or conservative... It turns my stomach to vote for people who can't be trusted... And I'm sure I have... But I am not knowlingly voting for dishonest folks...

As far as knowing if Al is lying or not and being the judge I follow a simple rule. You make a statement and then the facts don't support it.

Clearly, the school story is NOT factual, according to the press. The drug/dogs/mother story was not factual, again according to the press.

I don't have to be a judge. If the stories are rebutted in the press with facts and first-hand witnesses, then Al is hurting himself and showing himself to be a liar...

Has Bush lied? Probably. Someone please show me a confirmed story of Bush lying...<BR>

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 10:26 AM
Just wondering, do any of these "personal" stories from either side appeal to anyone? I find it all fake when Gore starts talking about some schoolgirl or Bush starts talking about "the Jones family" or whatever. I know examples are a good way to get your point across, but to me it feels like both candidates use people for political reasons. I think it would be more appealing if they just said "If you are making this much, his is what you can expect" rather than "I talked to Joe Shmo the other day and he was telling me about (insert sob story here)..."

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 10:26 AM
Clint: apples and oranges. you're looking at the federal withholding on your check and equating that to 'lower taxes'.

Taxes are what you pay on April 15th. You dont 'pay' taxes from your paycheck. You can increase your paycheck by adjusting your W-4 withholdings or work more.

If you look at the amount of taxes you pay on your form 1040 and divide that by your gross receipts you might actually see a decrease in percentage if Bush is elected. If Gore is elected, I honestly couldnt say the same.

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 10:27 AM
The "old lady from Iowa" story about picking up cans so that she could drive her Winnebago out there to be at the debate, didn't pull at my heart strings ONE BIT. Because she's been all over the Des Moines news for the last week about how Gore paid her several thousand dollars to come out there and show her face.

I'm an independent and I don't really like George Bush. But you liberals on here make me sad. Would you readily accept a bold-faced, cocky, conceited, LIAR in the White House if it meant that the Republicans wouldn't win?

------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

Fort Chief
10-04-2000, 10:28 AM
All the topics debated about Bush's "plan" are on the Bush website. The information is available to the public, no "spy" was needed.

htismaqe
10-04-2000, 10:29 AM
Well Clint, I guess you're just ignoring my admonishion to realize that some people may have skills that you don't. IMO, to deny that is what's stupid.

Yes Clint, I can determine who is lying to me better than some other people. On the same token, I know people that have better observational skills, more experience, and faster minds than I that have far better ability in this area than I do.

For you not to realize this is... naive.

Luz
open your mind and look around you...

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 10:30 AM
Cannibal: again, Gore's team admitted getting debate prep materials from the Bush camp. You telling me that they didnt review them for 'talking points' and the like?

Cmon, they did. It helped Gore. You should be glad.

CASHMAN
10-04-2000, 10:31 AM
Damn ... gotta go to lunch, I'm sure I'll miss about 60 replies in that time...

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 10:32 AM
Cannibal,

Of course, no spy was needed, however, one was used.

The indisputable fact remains that the Gore camp came into possession of taped debate rehearsals.

What remains to be proven is that this guy will do anything to become President.

------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
More Moreau

[This message has been edited by htismaqe (edited 10-04-2000).]

redbrian
10-04-2000, 10:33 AM
I'd put my ability to spot a liar up against anybody's.

If you don't think both candidates were obviously lying through their teeth last night, your ability to spot a liar is non-existant.

htismaqe
10-04-2000, 10:34 AM
Specifically when Clint?

Luz
testing his challenge to put his ability up against anyone's...

redbrian
10-04-2000, 10:35 AM
Spies. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

redbrian
10-04-2000, 10:37 AM
Luzap,


Every answer, almost every word. NOTHING these 2 promised will occur.

Most of their "answers" didn't even relate to the questions put to them.

The whole thing was one big pile of BS from start to finish.

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 10:43 AM
ALL candidates lie. ALL politicians lie. It is BS to sit here and say one side is honest and the other side is lying through their teeth. If either one of these guys get in office there are going to be times where they lie to us. This has been happening for a VERY long time. As far as lying about the antecdotes, I think it looks bad and like I said before I think using these stories is very unappealing. But how big a deal are these "lies"? The perscription drug thing may not have been a true story, but it had a point to make which is in the disparity between drug prices. And the school story may have been inaccurate, but it made an accurate point about class sizes, and I can vouch for that firsthand. I just think Gore in relating these stories came across as "fake." However, I do not consider these "lies" serious because of the point behind them...

htismaqe
10-04-2000, 10:43 AM
So when Bush said he wanted to give an accross the board tax cut, you think that was a lie?

Luz
doling out rope...

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 10:46 AM
I have to agree with Clint and Cannibal on a few things:

- Campaign platforms rarely survive after the election
- Reality has a way of changing the issues and needs
- Personal interest stories are drivel and boring. They're a blatant appeal for the women's vote
- Lying and politicians do usually go together. It is refreshing when you meet a politician who doesn't lie.

I don't think Gore had a clear debate victory. He had numbers, details, stiffness and arrogance.

I don't think Bush came off with a victory either. He was folksy, down-to-earth, sincere, and used commonsense. But he lacked depth in some areas of the debate, such as foreign policy.

I will be very interested in the next two debates to see how these guys go again...<BR>

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 10:46 AM
However, I do not consider these "lies" serious because of the point behind them...

IOW, the END justifies the MEANS, right? Wrong. I know this has been the MO of the last 8 years, but I think it's wrong.

Be straightforward about your goals. Making up stories ruins your credibility on the issue. The fact that these 'scare' tactics works is really what is pathetic.

DaKCMan AP
10-04-2000, 10:55 AM
There was one other line that I hated to hear from Gore. When asked about the gas issues the best he could come up with was that he would invest in "alternitive fuels". Oddly I think we have been doing that for a few decades now and have almost nothing to show for it other then a couple races each year by people laying down in a single person solar powered vehicle with no sort of lighting, brake lights, turn signals or the like. I'm sorry, but I believe if we have the oil lets get it and use it, and to heck with opec countries. Most of them don't like us and use their money to buy weapons to use against us.

On the other side of the coin, bush probably upset people with comments about lowering the restrictions on companies.

Morphius
Easily frustrated.

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 11:03 AM
.

[This message has been edited by DaWolf (edited 10-04-2000).]

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 11:05 AM
"Be straightforward about your goals. Making up stories ruins your credibility on the issue. The fact that these 'scare' tactics works is really what is pathetic."

That is exactly what I said. However I think the majority of Americans don't consider the "lies" serious and think more about the point behind them, which is why Gore is still ahead in the polls.

Again, all politicians lie. I'd rather have no lies obviously, but these lies are not as serious as "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" or "Read my lips" or "I don't recall" on the Iran/Contra stuff.

And Bush wasn't totally clean either, as he obviously tried to dodge around the supreme court question and sort of contradicted earlier remarks he and his party had made regarding the RU-486 decision...

KC_red
10-04-2000, 11:05 AM
Was I the only one that noticed that AL Gore was only campaigning and not answering the questions? Jr. at least answered the questions asked by Jim Lehrer.

The one thing that I saw was how each candidate carried himself. Bush calm, cool, collected, and to the point. Gore, flaky, huffing, puffing, pouting, and spouting out lots of information (but not much to the question asked).

I personally think that Bush probaly won more voters than Al Gore did. Those who favor Gore, probably still favor him, same for Bush, but I think more undecided voters will choose Bush over Gore based on the debates. Bush acted as a leader, Gore acted like a spoiled brat.

As far as issues- I think people who are not already decided on a party choose the better man. (Looks, overall perception- from the responses of the undecided voters interviewed you could see this in their comments)

As far as the media- is there any impartial media out there. If it was up to CNN and all the others- Gore would have already won. They are very impartial.

This should be a very close election, and I think there will be a record turnout this year.

Romel
10-04-2000, 11:10 AM
With all the intellectual firepower that those two titans wield, it's sure a shame that one of them has to go be President for 4 years and thus deprive the Arts and Sciences of such considerable heft. Good think Gary Coleman is available to make up some of the loss. Is Todd Bridges out of jail yet?

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-04-2000, 11:12 AM
KCTitus
what does this have to do with what i've said?
"IOW, the END justifies the MEANS, right? Wrong. I know this has been the MO of the last 8 years, but I think it's wrong."


I am an Independant and look for the candidate that supports many of the same issues I do.

AG wants tests to be "easier" and not culturally biased, therefor improving scores? Since when are facts not facts? 2+2=4

GW, whose wife has been a teacher, and children attended public school, wants children and teachers to be accountable for their education and test scores...I like that.
He doesn't support abortion. I like that
He won't try to take my guns. I like that
He isn't pals with Bill. I like that
He won't close more military bases, and will rebuild a failing military because slick willy tore it down. I have many many friends in the military, and most of them are angry about the way things have been run.


Al Gore will probably have a press conference about how he talked to Santa Clause and told him to stop giving so many gifts to the rich children and bring candy, toys and computers to the poor.<P>

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 11:13 AM
Wolf: making up a misleading story damages your credibility. The public does not 'look at the issue' behind the lie. The public is stupid. The story is designed to employ sympathy or create a crisis when there is none.

The fact that he must use these is sad. Being straightforward, would require him to be candid: 'I want to raise your taxes to pay for more govt entitlements'--that would be straightforward.

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 11:14 AM
Oregon,
I get the opposite impression. I think there is so much dissatisfaction with both candidates that a lot of people will just refuse to show up or not care enough to show up. I liked McCain a lot better than Bush, and the Demos really didn't have a stud candidate, Al Gore had to be there by default, and he doesn't excite anyone...

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 11:15 AM
Iowanian: sorry, IOW, is short for In Other Words. Not common, but I use it. Wasnt responding to your post.

DaveC
10-04-2000, 11:17 AM
I think Mr. Fly hit the big nail on the big head. Campaign "promises" are just a wish list spewed by both parties assuming congress will rubber stamp the whole package. (Then, after hell freezes over) - They aren't "lies" told just to give the public what they want to hear by either candidate.
This is what I find flimsy in Bush's attacks that "nothing has been done" on prescription drugs for seniors in 7 years, etc.. Of course action has been taken on almost every goal of the current administration. The fact is, getting a consensus among the swine at the trough in congress has always been next to impossible. It's tradition. Bush asserts "You can blame somebody else for your failures but blah, blah". Yes, they can blame somebody else. Just as he will when he gets sandbagged on every issue he tries to address should he win the election. Making excuses is highly Presidential, and he'll learn fast.
Respectfully, on another note, generalizing that only women are succeptible to personal interest "boring drivel" storys is a wee bit condescending. There are every bit as many gullible males in this country as women.

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 11:17 AM
Well if the public is stupid, GW has the edge, because Gore was confusing the hell out of them with the numbers. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

BTW, anyone have any thoughts on the campaign finance reform thing? Gore seemed to be real passionate about that but Bush seemed to avoid it as much as he could there at the end...

htismaqe
10-04-2000, 11:20 AM
Durtman,

There have been Presidents that have been very successful at passing legislation in a hostile Congress.

Reagan immediately comes to mind.

Bush doesn't blame Gore for not trying, he says it's time to elect someone that CAN get it done.

Luz
slight clarification...

DaveC
10-04-2000, 11:22 AM
Luz-
Convince me that Bush will inherit the Reagan consensus mantle.

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 11:24 AM
Luz,

"Someone who can get it done" is a line used every election by an opposing candidate. Why exactly would Bush be more successful? Would he cave in on the tax thing like his pops did? Bush can say all he wants, but we never really know until a guy reaches office. He's never been in Washington, it is very easy to say "I will get everyone to work together." Doing it is a totally different animal...

KC_red
10-04-2000, 11:32 AM
Wolf,

The reason I think that a lot more voters will show up are a few.

1. A closer race makes many feel that their vote counts for more.

2. A lot of angry Republican men who believe that Character Counts, will show up in masses to speak their vote.

3. Younger voter turnout.

4. Lot at stake in the future.

5. Women voter turnout.

6. Minority voters growing.


Any others ?


[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

KCFan95
10-04-2000, 11:32 AM
Just how big is that lockbox anyway? Bigger than a bread box? http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/confused.gif

And I wish that just once, GW would have said as his rebuttal, "Jim, I'm going to donate my time to the Vice President since he still hasn't answered your question." http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif

------------------
Frodo lives!!

Go Chiefs!!

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 11:36 AM
RE younger voter turnout, unfortunately I heard a report on one of the news stations the other day that said younger voters were real apathetic about both candidates because they felt they were being ignored by both in favor of the elderly and other such groups, and they interpreted that as likely that the young voter turnout will be less than stellar, and they interviewed a few "outraged" young voters. I felt that it was unfortunate if that is what is going to happen...

chief_red_pants
10-04-2000, 11:36 AM
I haven't read all the post in this topic, but has anyone explained who are these evil people that make up the "Richest 1%"? I always thought that they were Americans who pay the highest percentage of taxes, provide jobs and move the economy. I didn't realize they deserved to be punished for their obvious luck. Maybe there is something to this flat tax idea.<BR>

Fort Chief
10-04-2000, 11:36 AM
Wolf,

I noticed that as well about campaign finance.

Who knows if it will actually happen, but Gore said the first issue he wanted to address if elected was campaign finance, but when Bush addressed the issue in the debate all he could do is attack Gore for the way Gore financed his campaign. He said nothing about actually doing something about once in office if elected.

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 11:39 AM
Wolf: I tend to believe that and I also believe it will get even worse as the boomers continue to age.

Social Security and Medicare will be what drives elections. Speaking to the younger people would involve options to eliminate these burdensome programs as those on them die off.

MrBlond: Class envy works for the democrats. The other 99% are jealous of those 1% and therefore it plays well with the masses.

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 11:42 AM
Cannibal/Wolf: on campaign finance, now there is ONE area where there will be no changes. There are two options to change the way campaigns are financed:

1. Eliminate hard donations limits and require FULL disclosure of where the donations are coming from.

2. Continue the same convoluted system with Soft Money limits as well which would require a change in the 1st ammendment.

I believe #1 is the best of those two evils since I dont contribute to campaigns.

[This message has been edited by KCTitus (edited 10-04-2000).]

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 11:45 AM
Do you really think men are as touched about sob stories as women? Is that what guys go to the movies to see? My statement was an observation. Why else would these candidates being going on Oprah? Get real.<P>

KC_red
10-04-2000, 11:46 AM
Wolf,

A little insight on younger voters ( I am a younger voter)

Many friends I have will show up. Do not believe the poll's, take your own polls, ask some young people.

BTW the young voters are being addressed by GW, with the promise of getting a small portion of our money back. Do not be surprised by a large young voter turnout going GW's way.

I too believe that an across the board tax cut is at hand. There is nothing wrong with the 1%ers' getting a cut too. They earned it , why are they not entitled to receive a tax cut when the rest are getting one?


[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

Devin Vierth
10-04-2000, 11:49 AM
The 1%'s are not entitled to a tax cut because if it wouldn't be for them making so much money, the rest of us would be able to make more money. {This is only true if their is a finite source of wealth, which we know that isn't true.)

------------------
bk

DaveC
10-04-2000, 11:50 AM
Fly-
I made an observation as well. That men are as gullible as women. There are 96 sob stories on this thread and counting.
Real

Lurker Brett
10-04-2000, 11:50 AM
Here's the deal....

Vote for Gore and the dems if you think:

The government isn't big enough now.
The government will take care of you.
You will recieve better medical care if the government is in charge.
The government should babysit your kids while mom is at work.
Our current school system can be fixed by throwing more teachers at it.
The country's untapped oil should not be touched.

Vote for Bush and the repubs if you think:

Government is too big now and the ability to expand should be limited by tax cuts.
You think that the top 1% taxpayers deserve some of their money back.
The answer to high oil prices is to open up Alaska.
Testing teachers/kids in our school system is fair game.

These are the basic issues I am looking at. I am basically conservative and the thought of Gore and a dem controlled congress scare the $hit out of me.

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 11:52 AM
Oregon,
I too am a young voter here in NoCal, and the feeling I get from my peers is that none of the candidates are very appealing. A couple of people here in regards to the Bush plan to give money back jokingly say, "Yeah, they'll get their money and go waste it or lose it trying to play stocks, then they'll come back to the government begging for more." Now I don't necessarially share these opinions, I think people can be responsible with their money and if they do get their money back, it is theirs to do as they wish. But that is a big feeling I get from around here...

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-04-2000, 11:53 AM
I was just home for lunch. The press is all over the story about the girl standing in class. It was a lie, confirmed by the principal.

Campain reform, My take was that Bush didn't want to quit getting what he has in the middle of a fight. Gore hates that 1% but he sure spends quite a bit of time begging money from them....but I forgot, The "hollywood" types like the Balwins probably live off of free cheese and peanut butter and have the rent in their modest homes paid by the government plan.

KC_red
10-04-2000, 11:55 AM
KC...

How is the 1%er not getting a tax break going to improve your wealth?



[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 12:00 PM
Just got this off of CNN.com:

An 18-year-old preparing to vote for the first time, Abercrombie said many of his fellow students tuned out Tuesday night.

"I'd be surprised if any of them were watching this right now," he said. "No one really cares about the presidential election until they get older. For me to be here right now is kind of weird."

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/04/town.hall/index.html <BR>

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-04-2000, 12:03 PM
bbk,

The top 1% don't deserve a tax break? I will definitely be in this category and probably won't ever know one, but I don't understand why they are responsible to pay my bills. Who do you think is responsible for creating, building and expanding jobs? Therefor creating JOBS, where we simpletons can WORK and EARN our OWN money.

I agree that NO ONE should pay more than 33% of their income to the Government. I know damn well that I don't like it. But why is the money earned from that 1% ideas, companies, money less deserved than my measely peanuts?

KC_red
10-04-2000, 12:03 PM
Wolf...

I agree, there will be those that waste that money... but their are many that would enjoy the opportunity to have the chance to make their own decision.

Trust is a key factor here.

I think it is a difference in opinion, and is probably why we have elections.

BTW, I think it is great that we can all have a public forum where we can all debate the opinions and issues at hand. Nothing personal directed at any one. These are my opinions, if offended please recognize that I speak from the heart and respect others who do as well in speaking their opinions.

I appreciate the feedback given, hope the sentiment is the same from others.

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 12:07 PM
It's been fun guys. I don't think any of us have changed our positions, but I've enjoyed it.

So what were the funniest remarks you heard? (I'm not talking ridicule, just plain funny remarks...)<P>

KC_red
10-04-2000, 12:11 PM
Many (not all) of those 1%ers at one point in their life were not 1%ers, they were a lot like the majority of Americans. They took chances and made sacrifices to earn their standing.

I just think that they do not bear an undue responsibility for each of our futures. The great thing about this country is that the opportunity exists to become a 1%er. They took the risks, they deserve the rewards. It would be interested to see a list of the 1%ers and some of the altruistic things they do for others. You will never hear about this in the media though.<P>

Squish
10-04-2000, 12:13 PM
Why the hell does that 1% need all that money for? Can't they be happy living on a lot less? Would'nt it be better if we had a bell curve type tax system instead of a "flat tax"? I don't buy that horse **** about the 1% "earning" it. Waitresses and teachers work a hell of a lot harder than most of that 1%. The rich of this country should feel an obligation to the rest of society imho. TO do other wise is to be a selfish bastard. No wonder most of them are republicans :P

If you fear change, become a republican.
If you embrace change as opportunity, become a democrat or independent.

btw, Al Gore led the charge in congress to make the internet commercially available, thus putting the .com into the internet, which is the internet that most of us use. So, in a way, Al Gore helped invent the internet. Deal with it.

------------------
Don't think....feel.

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 12:14 PM
CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
October 3
Did the Debate Make You Switch Your Vote?

Yes 3%

No 96

Sampling error: +/-4% pts

I guess that is the bottom line.


I found this quote funny:

"I think Bush did himself a lot of good ... he came across as less intelligent but more sincere," said Morgan Marrietta, 30, a graduate student. But he said he was still undecided.

http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by DaWolf (edited 10-04-2000).]

KC_red
10-04-2000, 12:17 PM
Wolf.

Thanks for the proof behind your argument. You are right, many young voters are apathetic when it comes to voting. They are too young, but not all feel this way. That is my point. I consider young to be the first 10-15 years of voting age.

My point is that I believe there will be a larger turnout than is usual for this age group.

I do not have a news source for this, I am only using my personal experiences and perceptions from my small corner of the world. I could be wrong. We will see.<P>

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 12:17 PM
And if you believe in redistributing income because someone has it and you don't... vote democrat...

I made $100,000 in my own business last year. I paid 48% in taxes. Then I paid my own health insurance. Then I paid my property taxes, unemployment, disability, etc. Then I make my house payment (all 1700 square feet of it). Yeah, what do I need that extra money for right? After all, it's not like my kids could use it for college, or I might want to save it for retirement...

Nope, take it. I'm just a greedy bastard capitalist who simply doesn't understand that I have no right to expect to keep my money...<BR>

Devin Vierth
10-04-2000, 12:19 PM
I feel liberals are bad for a country. I don't like the fact that democrats feel they know what is best for me. The people should have more responsiblity and power to lead their own lives and less restrictions from the government.

------------------
bk

[This message has been edited by bkkcoh (edited 10-04-2000).]

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 12:20 PM
Oregon,
I hope I am wrong. We need to get everyone out there and get the democratic process working. I hate having a minority of eligible voters showing up to determine the country's future. We need people to show up and vote...

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 12:23 PM
If you fear change, become a republican - LMFAO

That is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Democrats are the defenders of the status quo, fighting for more and more money to spend on government programs. If 'change' means more government spending, then, yeah, Im afraid of change. Im afraid I cant afford it.

Gore did no more to 'help' invent the Internet than anyone on this BB. His legistlation did NOT make the Internet commercially available. Deal with that.

Lastly, Some people strive to make money. Their ambition is to become wealthy. Does this make them a bad person? Heavens no. There is no nobility in being poor.

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 12:23 PM
I feel it works both ways. Have less government and people ***** that the system isn't working for them. Have too much government and people ***** that there are too many restrictions. Extremes in either direction is bad. We need to have a nice medium...

KC_red
10-04-2000, 12:24 PM
KCAtMU...

So let me get this straight.. the 1%ers should write you and me a check because they have been successful...

And what about the 15%ers, and the 30%ers.

That seems to me to just be wrong. My opinion, you earn it you deserve it. That is what makes this system work. It motivates those without to try harder to improve. If you are not personally happy with your share you can act on it. And in is this country you have the opportunity to be successful.

Is it fair that the 1%ers have the largest portion of the pie? I am not sure, but should they bear an unfair burden in the programs and reforms of the goverment?

I don't think so. I believe that it should be fair, that is all. I am not angry that there is a 1% that is very wealthy. I may be jealous, but I am not angry.

<BR>

chief_red_pants
10-04-2000, 12:25 PM
Reply to post#108,

My employer is a 1%er. He can either pay around 46% federal tax or impove and expand his business, hiring more tax paying employees, paying contractors to expand, give more money to his current employees to spend as they see fit(paying sales tax btw). But maybe the goverment can use that money more wisely.

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 12:30 PM
Or he could be cheap about it and keep the extra money for his own personal wealth instead of making improvements or new hires or raises, like my current employer would probably do. Who knows? http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

chiefsfan58
10-04-2000, 12:31 PM
RE: Post 108

Are you serious? Let the 1%ers have their money! Why should they get hacked because they have done well?

Kind of a nasty sign if you ask me.

"Do well in this country, and get F***** by uncle sam."

Devin Vierth
10-04-2000, 12:31 PM
wolf,

The owner might not put it back into the company, but I bet he would spend it on vacations, entertainment or something else that would in turn create more jobs or work needed.




------------------
bk

KC_red
10-04-2000, 12:32 PM
Wolf...

I agree there has to be a middle ground. Our system is designed to work that way. The presidential election is more of a statement of the direction the country wants to head. It does not change the policies. It only ebbs the tide in one direction- it really is where the veto power lies.

I look at it like this. If I am a Republican, we have just lost two games in a row, and we need to get a win. If I am a Democrat, we have just won two in a row and want to keep the smowball going. The next game is coming up. And during and given election anything can happen.... and we are all the fans, with a little tiny bit of influence on the whole thing. But the game is really won during the week.

It is a team effort. --- agree with you.

Some like the Chiefs, some like the Broncos and some even like the Naders. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif


[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

chief_red_pants
10-04-2000, 12:32 PM
DaWolf,
Is that what he meant by putting it in a lockbox?

KC_red
10-04-2000, 12:39 PM
Good point BK.

So many times we overlook the bigger picture. Even the greedy, evil 1%ers is sometimes forced to give in and take a vacation and give up that wealth to us lowly 99%ers. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

Devin Vierth
10-04-2000, 12:40 PM
Are there going to be jobs are going to be created by the pan-handler on the street or the 1%??

------------------
bk

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 12:41 PM
In regards to my post about my employer keeping all the money, just having some fun with my bastard of a CEO. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

Perhaps if Carl and Lamar got tax breaks they could go spend some money and get a stud RB?

Oregon,
Agree. LOL, your post for some reason reminded me of the NFL Films thing I was watching the other day about the old NFL where for one year the Eagles and the Steelers had to combine to form the Steagles. They hated each other but managed to work together and go 6-5-1... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif<BR>

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-04-2000, 12:51 PM
I wish soooo much I could find this story. I will and post it next week if i can.

The Ant and The Grasshopper, In Liberal America(paraphrased version)

The ant works all day, every day for several years while the grasshopper stays home, skips school and plays. The ant creates a comfortable modest home with a large supply of food things for his family to eat. He has even stockpiled so that in case of a drought, his family will be ok. In an election year, Bill, HIllary and AL see the mistreatment of the poor starving grasshopper who is living in less than lavish conditions, and (gulp) might not have enough Oreos to eat this winter. They call a news conference to point out the unfairness and have a news crew film the lavish lifestyle of the "Oppressive" Ant, followed up by images of dirty grasshoppers chewing on crumbs. Al has Jesse Jackson hold a rally where Kermit the frog sings "its not easy being green" for a captivated audience of the oppressed green person.

In response to the unfairness and disparity in lifestyles, Bill calls for the Taxation of all persons Ant to allow the Redistribution of wealth.

The Ants food stores are taken away, his house is given to the grasshoppers and the Ant starts over.

The following year, the Grasshopper hasn't maintained the home, has eaten the food, is hungary again, and has his hand out for the next ration.

Meanwhile the ant is hauling nuts for the sqirrel to try to earn some nuts to feed his own children.


I really wish I could find the original...but this is a CLASSIC liberal View.....and I still work for the squirrel...must be near a ballpark..i get peanuts.

[This message has been edited by Iowanian (edited 10-04-2000).]

DaKCMan AP
10-04-2000, 12:55 PM
Wolf - The thing is that if they do go play slots and the such then the Casino will be able to raise people's pay, hire more people and have to pay more to repair men. Then those poeple have more money to go out and spend on other things and... So really it is not a bad thing and seems to make more sense then the gov't spending it on something more useless.

I do wonder why gore didn't say that he was going to keep the surpluss in a lockbox and only spend it on paying down the national debt, well OK, not really, I'm sure they will have another way to spend it.

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 12:59 PM
LOL. Funny story. However, I don't know how accurate it is. Remember, during the past 8 years unemployment has decreased bigtime, average salaries have risen, there is apparently less dependence on welfare, the economy has been strong, etc. Now I know both sides want to take credit for this economic success, but it didn't happen under previous administrations. And they were saying on the radio last night that Regan actually increased goverment a hell of a lot more. Everything is debatable, I suppose...

Gracie Dean
10-04-2000, 01:01 PM
The Original Version...

The ant busts his butt in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-04-2000, 01:02 PM
thats the way it SHOULD BE JC....

you reap what you sew..

Devin Vierth
10-04-2000, 01:03 PM
JC-Johnny:

Here is a link to a version of that story:
http://www.teleport.com/~brentf/greenism.html



------------------
bk

Gracie Dean
10-04-2000, 01:03 PM
The New Liberal Version...

It starts out the same but when winter comes the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, and ABC show up and show pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to film of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be, in a country of such wealth that this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Then a representative of the NAAGB (The National Association of Green Bugs) shows up on Night Line and charges the ant with "Green Bias" and makes the case that the grasshopper is the victim of 30 million years of greenism. Kermit the frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when he sings "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Gracie Dean
10-04-2000, 01:03 PM
Bill and Hillary Clinton make a special guest appearance on the CBS evening news and tell a concerned Dan Rather That they will do everything they can for the grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the summer, or as Bill refers to it, the "Temperatures Of The 80's".

Finally the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Greenism Act" RECTRO-ACTIVE to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and having nothing left to pay his Retro-Active taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in....which just happens to be the ant's old house.... crumbles around him since he doesn't know how to maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV; which the grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, Bill Clinton is standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "Fairness" has dawned in America.

Gracie Dean
10-04-2000, 01:04 PM
Part Two...

After reading all the conservative propaganda, and listening to the Ant, the Grasshopper started to feel guilty, and he resolved to be a Better Grasshopper in future. So he got together with all his Grasshopper friends and family (who were all as shockingly irresponsible as he had been) and they all decided to go out and get jobs. The hard-working Ant was ever so pleased to hear that his message had finally gotten through.

Gracie Dean
10-04-2000, 01:04 PM
Everything went well for a while: the Ant and the Grasshopper worked side by side, discussing conservative economics as they laboured. But one day, the foreman came by to talk to the Ant. "I'm sorry, Mr. Ant," he said, trying to avoid eye contact. "There's so much cheap Grasshopper labour on the market these days that I can't afford to keep you working for me. I'm going to have to let you go."

The Ant was furious. Every day, he would sit at home, writing angry letters to his congress-ant about how they should do something about all those awful Grasshoppers coming and stealing jobs from the Ants. He filled his days with so much hate that one day, he got sick, and his doctor told him that he had cancer.

Poor Ant! Still, at least he could go to the hospital and get better. But when he looked at his health insurance policy, he found that it had expired when he had left his job! The only way to get medical treatment was to dig into his retirement savings, and there wasn't enough money to pay for it all.

Well, this story turned out well for the Ant, as it happened. He had been born in Grasshopperland, which had a Liberal government that provided health care for everyone, and so he went to stay with his old family for a while. Although strictly speaking it was against his principles, he accepted their Liberal hospital treatment, and a year later, he was cured. And from that day to this, Gentle Reader, the Ant never complained about how unfair the Liberals were.

Frazod
10-04-2000, 01:05 PM
This article pretty much sums it up for me on why I won't vote Democrat any time soon. Too many "Political Prostitutes" as refered to in this article. It also states that minorities are one group that benefits from these policies. I am minority so I am going against the norm. I believe everything achieved in this country should be done through hard work, not entitlements. I do believe that some entitlements are necessary but I don't want to see the system overloaded with them through bigger and bigger government and more taxes. We are being taxed to death. The article does a good job on who really benefits from that. Reminds me too much of Gore's policies.
http://www.etherzone.com/mome050199.html

Dan



[This message has been edited by The_Grand_Illusion (edited 10-04-2000).]

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-04-2000, 01:12 PM
John,

that was exactly the story I was looking for. thanks.

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 01:14 PM
Is this what it all boils down to? The rich vs the poor?

Some of us work hard and we're poor
Some of us work hard and we're middle class
Some of us work hard and we're rich
Some of us never work and are rich'
Some of us never work and are poor
If you don't work you cannot ever be middle class

Is it a crime to succeed in America? Is it a crime being poor? Does the gov't really have a "right" to redistribute wealth?<P>

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-04-2000, 01:38 PM
my whole point is this.

The government of ANY country could confiscate all of the money and all of the property within ins boundaries, and REDISTRIBUTE IT EVENLY to all presons living in that country.

ALL being equal in the beginning, In a short matter of time, we would be right back where we are. Some people are more intelligent and thrifty. They would invest, save and wisely use their money. Others would stay home, drink expensive beer, buy and smoke crack, gamble or invest unwisely.

The economy would REdistribute itself based on knowledge, ingenuity, luck, and skill.....

Economic classes will always exist. I come from the bottom portion of the financial ladder, and the fact that my fathers pride refused to allow us to mooch off of the "haves" and work that much harder to get what we DID have...Its a matter of pride, hard work, and tenacity.

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 01:51 PM
Rich vs. poor...

The "have's" and the "have-not's"...

Get used to it people...it's called Capitalism, and it's the perfect, man-made, Darwinian social order. Capitalism moves in and of itself, without government. The role of money IS life and death. Government intervention is akin to man cutting down the rain forests - the more you meddle, the worse it degrades the system.

The government can and WILL seize and redistribute all property. The Bolsheviks did it in 1917. They said they would give it all to the people. Instead, they used it to enforce a totalitarian social order where the 1% STILL controlled everything.

Face it, since the beginning of time, no one has EVER been equal, and, until the end of time, no one will EVER be equal. Man cannot escape natural selection and nature is even devious enough to prove itself in our greatest creation - capitalism.

------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

darkchief
10-04-2000, 01:54 PM
Who's the grasshopper? Is that the guy from that old Kung Fu series?

------------------
It looks I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue!

hawaiianboy
10-04-2000, 02:08 PM
A bell curve tax plan. Would that not mean that the middle class would pay more and the poor and the rich pay none.
One of my favorite writers had this to say about the two parties. And I paraphrase.
The difference between democrats and republicans is
Democrats lie and cheat for fun.
Republicans lie and cheat for profit.
I would rather support the group that recives a profit from thier effort.

One more point Albert said he was going to eliminate the national debt, while at the same time keep the extra cash from medicare and ss in a lockbox.
Now as I understand it this means the money is put into T-bills the goverment pays about 2% interest on this money.
The 2% on this dept comes from the people (were paying interest to ourselfs)and creates deficit spending.
Talk about your fuzzy math.

redbrian
10-04-2000, 02:19 PM
I say make the people that have benefitted most from living in this country pay for it. IMO they SHOULD pay a higher percentage than people of lower classes. Sure, some of them may have worked hard to get where they're at (at least the ones that didn't inherit their money or get rich overnight), but once they become wealthy, they're on Easy St.

Let them pay the govt. for maintaining a country that has allowed them to lead such a pampered lifestyle.

I agree with what some of you have said: We are not and never will be equal. Why should people that are "less than equal" be expected to contribute an equal amount in taxes? They don't, and shouldn't.

diz
10-04-2000, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>Man cannot escape natural selection and nature is even devious enough to prove itself in our greatest creation - capitalism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I thought the wheel was a big deal, or calculus, or a symphony. Sheesh!

Make no mistake; money rules this country. Unfortunately, some people have mistaken this fact for virtue and think that anything that makes money is good. The thing is, the people who deserve the money the most usually don't get it. What does a fashion model do in the course of one hour that justifies paying him/her more money for that one hour than a police officer makes in a whole year? The next time you're complaining about Dennis Miller being on MNF or the fact that kids don't know right from wrong, don't blame the democrats, blame the capitalists.

Sometimes winning isn't everything and having the most money doesn't make you biologically superior.

redbrian
10-04-2000, 02:24 PM
It is my personal opinion that it is the government's obligation to see to it that America's senior citizens are well taken care of. People that have worked & paid taxes for 40-50 years AND spawned a new generation of taxpayers deserve to know they'll be able to retire at a decent age WITHOUT having to depend on Wall St. or some $500.00/mo. check...no matter what the cost. They shouldn't have to live with relatives or eat government cheese because they couldn't play the stock market when they were younger.

How about a little "customer appreciation" from the govt?

Raiderhader
10-04-2000, 02:30 PM
Clint: Have no problem with that, only problem I dont see that in the constitution. Why empower a govt to take care of you?

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-04-2000, 02:31 PM
clint,

I haven't been trying to infer that people with money are "better", obviously due to the fact that I don't happen to be one of them. Another fact I have learned is that MONEY itself doesn't equate happiness...I had a friend in college whose parents won not 1, but 2!!!! state lotteries....big money, but my pal still killed himself 5 years later.

I'm not saying that the rich shouldn't be taxed. My postition is that I!!! want a tax break,and when things are going well, they should get a break too.....the same %of taxes on $30k isn't going to be the same $ as $150k at the same 30%.

I think the tax break should be a sliding scale...Everyone should get a break that equally relieves economic stresses...i know I sure wish there were more breaks for student loans...


Disco,

I aggree that the pay scale per job isn't always logical...but a model is gifted genetically in a way that has market value...I don't think professional athletes are worth the money they make....If they worked for reasonable salaries, maybe the owners would charge lower ticket prices and I could afford to go to more games http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-04-2000, 02:35 PM
Clint, I agree whole heartedly with your last post.

BUT as a younger American, I'd like to have a little more leverage in determining MY retirement. I do work, save, and put money into a retirement account, but would like the abuility as an educated, responsible person to try and gain more than 2% on my money....for those that are less intelligent, thrifty, etc...let them have a choice for the goverments existing plan.

Fort Chief
10-04-2000, 02:39 PM
Iowanian,


Do you currently invest your money?

BIG_DADDY
10-04-2000, 02:44 PM
Not to get off the subject of capitalism but...

I came away from that debate and thought about which guy could carry off a summit meeting with the leader of a rival power. George W. did not pass the test.

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-04-2000, 02:46 PM
canniabal,

I AM definitely no guru at investments. I invest in several ways. I have some money in a IRA split between 4 funds, some agressive, some small cap and steady. I have some cattle that are all payed for, and in a way are an investment. I also have a retirement fund through work that matches more than i put in, up to 10%, which is what I do..

I don't mess with the stock market much...i've not had enough extra to toy with after student loans, truck payment, house, yada yada yada(don't like singing to the chior).


KCjones,

Watch dubya in a one on one interview, like Larry King...He really does ALOT better under a different format.

I don't think he's perfect, but better than al bore


[This message has been edited by Iowanian (edited 10-04-2000).]

DaKCMan AP
10-04-2000, 02:52 PM
Jones - I was trying to figure out why people were complaining that Bush had to think about what he was going to say, while Gore just always went off on his tangent. I guess in a discussions with world leaders I want the guy who is going to think about what he is going to say and not come off in a condescending manner.

diz
10-04-2000, 02:53 PM
Iowanian -

re: The model - as they say, "Beauty lies in the hands of the beer holder." http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

re: Professional athletes - Which candidate is for lower ticket prices? Hmmm....I may actually find a reason to vote for one of these guys yet! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif<BR>

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 02:55 PM
Disco,

Who said anything about virtue? That, again, is wishful thinking - a man-made idea that defies the "natural order" of things...

The idea that having money doesn't make you genetically superior is WRONG. It can be scientifically proven, over and over and over, that rich people beget rich people and poor people beget poor people. Poverty or wealth, either one, is inherited. Simply put, those with money survive because they can buy things. Those without money will not, because they can't buy things.

It is not as pronounced today, because we still have cash money. But 75 years ago, we had GOLD. Now we have paper. 10 years from now, all we will have is plastic, and they don't give credit to just anybody. If you thought the difference between affluent and impoverished is striking now, just wait.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to agree with that, but unfortunately, it's a cruel world and it's a simple fact. It doesn't matter whether it's popular, compassionate, sad, or hateful. It just is, and there's not a damn thing any of us can do about it.

Everyone, at some time or another gravitates towards political conservatism. Liberalism rises in eras of properity and good-feeling. However, as time goes on, and people realize what it takes to survive, they begin to protect what is theirs and keep others from having it.

Make no mistake about it, the fundamental element of all life is carbon. The fundamental element of all American life is money.

------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 02:59 PM
By the way, Disco, in case you haven't noticed, my specialty in my degree (History/German/Philosophy) was 19th Century Industrial Nihilism. My favorite author, by far, is Friederich Nietzche. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-04-2000, 03:01 PM
htms,

I do have one difference with what you said in your last post...

Bill Gates did not come from a wealthy family..He and a few ingenuitive friends invented something in a garage that has changed worldwide business.

Survival with natural selection. If money weren't an issue, and raw survival were...I'll take my chances competing with a millionaire for food over a coutry boy any day....and twice on sunday...but thats just that Barbarian in me http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

KC_red
10-04-2000, 03:02 PM
Mr., Mr. Jones....

I came away with the exact opposite feeling about who I would have representing our country in foreign affairs. I want the candidate who is not pouting, huffing , and puffing. Bush was much more composed in a simple debate than Al Gore.

Gore was spouting rhetoric only. He was not focused in the question at hand. I imagine most world leaders do not take well to the spoiled child routine that Gore had.

My take on it.

diz
10-04-2000, 03:06 PM
Re post #154:

This is the reason why our society is failing.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>The idea that having money doesn't make you genetically superior is WRONG. It can be scientifically proven, over and over and over, that rich people beget rich people and poor people beget poor people. Poverty or wealth, either one, is inherited. Simply put, those with money survive because they can buy things. Those without money will not, because they can't buy things.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, no offense aimed at you personally Hits, but this is totally absurd. So Bill Gates's parents were billionaires? So it's not possible to rise from poverty to wealth or go from wealth to poverty?

Now taking your arguement to it's end, it follows that after even thousands of years of human existance, we should all be rich by now. For obviously, and according to you this has been SCIENTIFICALLY proven, all of the poor should have died off years or even centuries ago because they could not afford it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>Simply put, those with money survive because they can buy things. Those without money will not, because they can't buy things.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, but people have been around A LOT longer than capitalism, and I tend to be optimistic in thinking that they will be around a long time after it.

[This message has been edited by DiscoJones (edited 10-04-2000).]

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 03:09 PM
Oregon,
I disagree. BOTH were spouting rhetoric. All Bush ever said was "fuzzy math" and "I want to give to all people" and "they didn't get the job done" and "we need a leader in washington" and that sort of stuff. I heard very few specifics from GW. Even the dude who was covering his campaign said after the debate that basically what he did was rehash everything he said in his stump speeches, and that was why his answers were so short. Basically what I got from Bush was "don't believe him ,he's trying to confuse you, trust me, but hey I can't really tell you why to trust me, just don't trust him."

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 03:12 PM
People can "adapt" within the system and move to a higher position in the food chain, as Bill Gates did, in just the same way that animals can overcome natural selection through adaptation, like small mammals overcoming the dinosaurs great size by eating their eggs.

But you can bet everything that Bill Gates owns that his children and their children and the children after them will never want for anything. His "adaptation" has moved his "species" to the top of the food chain, and the only thing that will remove them is a better, more powerful "predator".



------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

diz
10-04-2000, 03:12 PM
Hits - re #155: LOL! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif It's all falling into place for me now!<BR>

KC_red
10-04-2000, 03:21 PM
Perhaps both were spouting rhetoric but I was not impressed by the Gore rhetoric, at all.

I guess either you get it, or you don't. Probably goes both ways though.

My only take was that Gore's handling of it was not in my opinion very impressive. No more than GB, maybe even a little less impressive. How many times can one man give the same answer to five or 6 different questions?

Brevity does not prove lack of knowledge, any more than rambling about a topic proves authority on it.

My take is that Al Gore was not as good as George Bush. I don't buy the arguments that the media has placed and that you apparently agree with.

I do not think that the specifics are a requirement to make a decision, I elect a President based upon how well I feel he will support my opinions and beliefs. Bush does that for me, Gore does not do it in the least for me.



[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

Gracie Dean
10-04-2000, 03:22 PM
Ann Coulter [hard-a$% I know, but still a babe] drops some interesting knowledge on the supposed [orchestrated??] Dumb/Sincere -vs- Evil/Smart choice we've been presented.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR> In high school, Gore received all C's in French and mostly C's and B's in English and history. Indeed, his lone A in all those subjects came in a senior year history class. Only in art classes did Gore earn straight A's. And he took a lot of them.

Gore got into Harvard on the basis of his high board scores -- and the fact that his father was a prominent U.S. senator. (When George W. Bush got into Yale, his father was a comparative unknown -- a mere congressman, on the verge of losing his first race for Senate. He was a Yale alumnus, but so were a lot of other boys' parents.)

Gore continued his mediocre performance at Harvard, ranking in the bottom fifth of the class for his first two years. In his sophomore year, the Post reports: "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale."

Gore could not complete either divinity school or law school at Vanderbilt, failing five of the eight classes he took in his three semesters at divinity school. Exactly how many classes do you have to fail to be called dumb, if you're a Democrat?

Meanwhile, the Dumb Guy was earning his MBA from Harvard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 03:29 PM
Disco,

Not an attempt to confuse or anything, but the "social Darwinism" I am referring to has not existed for thousands of years. For those first thousands of years, we've been making the adjustment from being instinctive animals to intellectual human beings.

In fact, the genesis of the capitalist social order finds itself at about the same time as Darwin was formulating his theories. This whole "evolutionary" process is only about 150 years old.

We've spent the last 2 centuries creating a new "culture" whereby money is the be-all end-all of existence. People with money, it could be argued, are further ahead in the process. In fact, it can be said that, especially in our society, the impoverished or unfortunate are viewed and even treated as "animals".

Again, I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. But it is the world that we have created for ourselves.

------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

KC_red
10-04-2000, 03:30 PM
JC... that is some very interesting information. Wonder why this background information has not been prevalent in the media. Seems this might insight more careful judgement of the candidates. It amazes me how easily people are swayed to believe something that the media wants them to believe.

I thought that Bush was extremely intelligent and I think that he won this debate. The mystique that GW is dumber than Al Gore is playing on people's minds and affecting their perceptions, no doubt.

[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

mcnall
10-04-2000, 03:42 PM
I really think that Bush missed an opportunity last night. Gore continuously hammered him on the top one percent thing and he did a poor job of responding. What would have been so wrong in pointing out the obvious? People who make over $1,000,000 a year pay more dollars in income tax than someone making 30K. So obviously if we cut everyone’s taxes they are going to get a larger # of dollars back. The graduated income-tax brackets are ludicrous. Why should the Government get to keep a higher percentage of your money because you made more? I really with they would just nuke the entire friggin mess and go to a consumption tax that excludes food and medicine.

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 03:45 PM
Well first we are talking about school grades, and IMO anyone who went to school knows that grades are overrated. Hell i used to have friends 10 times smarter than I was who got lower scores on their tests than I did because they were busy with other things or did not know how to study for tests or whatever. I also found that my grades actually improved after i transferred from community college to Berkeley, because with a bigger university the curve is a lot bigger and thus you have a better chance at getting higher grades. Then there are schools like Stanford who I've been told used to not give anyone anything below a C because they needed to maintain their "standards."

Intelligence in my estimation is how you learn and what you learn from your experiences and how you put your ideas into action.

The interpretation of intelligence is how you present yourself. Bush has a problem mispronouncing things and saying some dumb things or whatever, and thus he is percieved as not being too bright. However, you don't become governor of Texas and get this far into the presidential race by being dumb...

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 04:02 PM
Interesting side note....

ABC News reported today on the "poor little girl" with no seat at school that Gore pounded home. Supposedly due to overcrowding and poor funding this girl had nowhere to sit in class... at least that is what Gore stated last night.

The principal of the school called the local ABC News affiliate. It seems the girl did not have a seat, for 3 whole days.... because they were busy unloading $100,000.00 worth of science equipment in the room. She had to sit at a bench on a stool for 1 hour of 3 different days while her school mustered up a couple of bucks to install a gadget or two in the science room. The principal stated that his school is definitely not overcrowded and has never been underfunded.

How many more lies can this idiot tell without the media blasting him for it?>

diz
10-04-2000, 04:07 PM
Hits - I find this subject interesting and I'm sure that we could have hours of fun discussing it at a nice watering hole. I don't know how much more I'll be posting on this and I think that we may be straying from the initial meat of the topic.

But....with regard to the birth of social Darwinism, it would be shortsited to assume that the CONCEPT existed before Darwin's theories because if they had, it wouldn't have been Darwin's theory. Get it? But, to assume that it could not already be OCCURING before the theory arrived is like saying that America did not exist until Columbus "discovered" it. "Intellectual human beings" have existed for thousands of years. Look at the Romans, the ancient Egyptians, the Mayans, and the Chinese. The Romans even used currency and had a trade-based economy. So even if the rest of the world was behind, the Romans should all be very wealthy by now - if not own the world. They've had at least a couple of thousand years to "evolve".

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>In fact, it can be said that, especially in our society, the impoverished or unfortunate are viewed and even treated as "animals".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I do think this is wrong, but I don't think it is due to social Darwinism. The world was like this long before Darwin's theories.

I have enjoyed our discussion. Thanks. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

KC_red
10-04-2000, 04:09 PM
It seems that just about anything and everyone is fair game for Gore. If there is a storyline somehere, he will twist it and use it. Is he that desperate to feel connectedto real people that he has to make all these stories up. It really makes him look like the dumb one.

Maybe he can tell a story about how the Chiefs fans have been denied a Superbowl and had one of the best records of the nineties and therefore should receive more tax breaks than the 1%ers. (and 49ers). At least then Chiefs Fans will get tax breaks and increased drug benefits for their troubles.

[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 04:10 PM
Clint - Instead of just showing appreciation in the latter years, we actually plan for our own futures? Yes, it is true, you can actually plan your own destiny if you try.

With mandatory retirement plans and privatization of SS funds, the evil monster of social security and the money sucking medicare could actually be controlled and drastically reduced - by as much as 80%.

Why don't Democrats offer these options? Because then they cant lie to old folks in the nursing homes about how their pets get the same meds they do only cheaper.

Al Gore, Stop scaring people and just be honest.

AustinChief
10-04-2000, 06:43 PM
According to the "objective" CNN analysis, both candidates lied or exaggerated about their plans and, of course, their accusations of each other...

- Gore was wrong on Bush's tax cut numbers (the rich 1% getting 50% of the tax cut is flat out inaccurate / the bulk of the tax cut goes to the middle class)
- Bush was wrong on Gore's gov't program numbers (numbers are not hard and fast, where the money comes from not defined)
- Gore was wrong on Bush's Social Security impacts (no doom and gloom)
- Bush was wrong on Gore's prescription drug plan (estimates are all over the place because no one really knows because the plan is too vague)

Ready for Round Two...

gh4chiefs
10-04-2000, 07:16 PM
Here's some of favorite excerpts. Bush apparently didn't know about Russia's support of the wrong side in the Yugo election fiasco. Oh, yeah - this guys qualified to be president.....

BUSH: But this'll be an interesting moment for the Russians to step up and lead as well, be a wonderful time for the -- for the Russia to step into the Balkans and convince Mr. Milosevic it's in his best interest and his country's best interest to leave office. The Russians have got a lot of sway in that part of the world, and we'd like to see them use that sway to encourage democracy to take hold.

Gore: Now, I understand what the governor has said about asking the Russians to be involved. And under some circumstances, that might be a good idea. But being as they have not yet been willing to recognize Kostunica as the lawful winner of the election, I'm not sure that it's right for us to invite the president of Russia to mediate this dispute there, because we might not like the result that comes out of that.

BUSH: Well, obviously we wouldn't use the Russians if they didn't agree with our answer, Mr. Vice President.

GORE: Well, they don't.


Kinda remind you of Ford? Or Quayle? Here's another gem - thinks Mexico is a state...

BUSH: And I talked about how best to be able to expedite the exploration of natural gas in Mexico and transport it up to the United States, so we become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil.

10-04-2000, 10:05 PM
OK this has no bearing or anything, But Did Gore remind you of someone?

with his head movements and mannerisims?

To me he looked like the SNL parody of Reagan they did one time.

Coundn't stop giggling the whole time he was speaking.<P>

Cannibal
10-04-2000, 10:08 PM
Duck,
LOL. Bush always comes up with some gems...

stevieray
10-04-2000, 11:44 PM
Just an observation....

Why do people need to put the disclaimer "Non-football related" on certain posts?

As if the majority is going to open a thread entitled "did you watch the debates last night" and be surprised to see it about Gore/Bush and not Alexander/Morris, who were debating about who's the best receiver on the Chiefs?

gh4chiefs
10-04-2000, 11:58 PM
Howzabout when that journalist was testing Bush's command of foreign affairs and Bush didn't know the names of the leaders of the countries. Bush's said he didn't know and asked the reporter if HE knew.

The journalist replied, "Well, I'm not running for president!"

AustinChief
10-05-2000, 12:00 AM
I think the disclaimer "non-football" originated under the old BB due to the constant complaining of a few that the BB should only be used for football and folks shouldn't have to read non-related stuff... Hence, the phrase "non-related" worked its way into thread titles, even though the topic was already self-explanatory...

Old habits die hard...
http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

mikey23545
10-05-2000, 12:00 AM
Duck-

Let's see, we want Kostunica in, since he actually won the election. There is not much we can do about it, so we'll need some assitance for this to be accomplished. Vladimir Putin is offering to step in and help. Let's see which Yugoslavian canidate is willing to allow Russia to mediate.

Hmmm, seems Kostunica disagrees with Algore. (He's the guy who won.)

"President Vladimir Putin's proposal is very much in my interests," Kostunica said in an interview with the paper appearing on Wednesday. "All that remains to be done is to work out certain details and the format of the meeting in Moscow."

Let's see what Milosevic has to say. (He's the guy who lost)

Milosevic has not replied directly to Putin's proposal and made no mention of it in a television address on Monday evening.


Duck, whenever Algore speaks, it's best to asuume that it is a lie. This admin has zero foreign policy. If it concerns you, Cheney can cover. The dems have no Cheney, anywhere.

Billy Richardson after several trips begging OPEC for more production got zero.

Chase as she may, Albright accomplishes nothing.

How laughable it is that dem's actually think they have a foreign policy advantage.

One a positve note, Algore is very good with the pronunciation of foreign leader's names, however I'm not that convinced that will garner any respect from said foreign leaders. Oh--and dogging Russia on this is the epitome of a diplomatic snafu.

gh4chiefs
10-05-2000, 12:26 AM
Read the debate transcript on the CNN website. Bush again had no clue on his foreign policy homework. But thats OK because Cheney or someone that knows what they are doing will step in and take care of business. Is Bush then just a mouthpiece for the decisions of his cabinet? In that case it would be nice if he told us beforehand who he intends to pick. Because they would then be the real leaders of our country with Bush as the posterboy for their decisions. Is it really Newt, Army, Hatch & Co that Gore is running against?

Even the hated Bill Clinton wouldn't get caught with his foreign policy pants down the way Bush is prone to do. Bush has had plenty of time to do his homework on how to run the country. He has failed. But its OK. Cheney or someone else will make those decisions for us.

mikey23545
10-05-2000, 12:49 AM
Duck-

Thanks for the tip on the transcript. That sounds like the correct give and take. I am not questioning the validity of your cut and paste job.

My question is whether or not Gore even knows what his admin is doing.

When Gore said "Well, they don't." It appears he was incorrect.

He (foreign policy adviser Sergei Prikhodko)said Putin had discussed the Yugoslav situation by telephone with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as part of a series of consultations that also involved U.S. President Bill Clinton, Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato and French President Jacques Chirac. Gee- looks like Bill was on the horn already discussing this.

Yes, Bush will need many advisers. As will Gore, as did Clinton, Bush, Sr. etc.

So---in the simplest of terms, what Bush suggested is now being put into play (at least that's what Kostunica would like so he can assume his rightful place as leader) and Gores ididotic response is right now in the process of being proven wrong.

Putin has no choice but to step in, since Milosevic is uninterested in participating which way do you think Putin is leaning?

mikey23545
10-05-2000, 01:06 AM
Duck-

Here are some of my favs from algore:

Vice President Al Gore yesterday conceded that a dramatic anecdote he told in Tuesday night's debate was not exactly true. (That means he was lying)

Mr. Gore — who said he traveled to Texas with the Federal Emergency Management Agency Director James Lee Witt to inspect wildfire damage — acknowledged yesterday he did not. He was in Texas, but he was at a fundraiser. But he really is for campaign finace reform.

The Gore campaign spent much of yesterday putting out other fires concerning other anecdotes, including one by Mr. Gore that a Florida school forced a female student to stand in an overcrowded classroom. Oops, wrong again.

Mr. Gore's latest gaffes follow the concocted story two weeks ago about how prescription drugs for his mother-in-law cost more than arthritis drugs for his dog. Aides later said the story was a "composite" using numbers from a congressional report.

That was followed by Mr. Gore's claim that he was involved with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "since the days it was first established." In fact, he entered the House two years after the reserve was created in 1975.

Then he told a labor group that his mother had sung one of their union songs to him as a lullaby, but the song wasn't written until Mr. Gore was 27. "Look for the Union Label."

Sure I could do the internet thing, the Love canal, Love Story, etc. But it's like shooting fish in a barrel.<P>

gh4chiefs
10-05-2000, 01:08 AM
So are you saying that Putin had already nixed the idea of the Yugo runoff election at the time of the debate? Where can I find that info? Seems to me that it makes good sense to make sure the Russians will "sway" the Yugos the way we want them to sway before we ask them to mediate the crisis. I am not aware that Putin agreed to nix the runoff before the debate happened. Certainly we expect Putin to be in phone contact concerning what is happening in their back yard. But that doesn't mean they will sway our way unless we have a solid agreement. Bush was premature in suggesting that its a good time to invite "the Russia" to come in and sway.

And he doesn't know the world leader's names, either. Should have been doing his homework like Clinton. Bill couldn't keep his zipper up, but he outclasses Bush by a mile with regard to knowledge, preparedness, and execution. Bush strikes me as a Gerald Ford type - the world will laugh at us if that is the best we can come up with.

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 01:31 AM
But didn't Gore agree that it would be good to call in the Russians if they saw things the way we saw them too? I'll have to read the transcript on that one again...


"Tell them, I HAVE LEARNED FROM MISTAKES I MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE MADE"
George W. Bush

AustinChief
10-05-2000, 01:42 AM
Duck - Are you actually stating that you support Al and Bills current foreign military policies?

Which ones have you been impressed with? Bosnia, Ethiopia, Somalia, or Iran?

ALL were dismal failures.

At least Cheney has the cojones to accomplish his goals.

htismaqe
10-05-2000, 07:53 AM
In foriegn affairs, the primary objective is to earn the trust of those that you're dealing with. Do you think that Russia trusts Clinton/Gore?

Do you think that they will change their mind and start trusting Gore knowing he's prone to 'exageration' (lying)?

It was clear to me that Bush was thinking that a proper foriegn policy would have the russian's doing our bidding ~ but his ability to communicate that in two minutes at the debate was piss poor. Bush missed a beautiful chance here to expose the ineptness of current foriegn policy.

Luz
more to come...

htismaqe
10-05-2000, 08:18 AM
I want to respond to the following statement...

DaWolf
Regular
Post# 87 posted 10-04-2000 12:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Luz,
"Someone who can get it done" is a line used every election by an opposing candidate. Why exactly would Bush be more successful? Would he cave in on the tax thing like his pops did? Bush can say all he wants, but we never really know until a guy reaches office. He's never been in Washington, it is very easy to say "I will get everyone to work together." Doing it is a totally different animal... "

Bush has a very real reputation here in Texas of doing exactly that ~ getting things done.

He won the Governorship from Ann Richards (a Democratic icon) and was the most hated republican (by democrats) in the State.

Never the less, he pulled both sides together in bipartisan efforts and achieved historical reforms in many areas, especially education. He became the only governor in Texas to ever be elected to consecutive terms, and today, even has prominate democrats serving in his administration.

He has proven himself a man that sets results ahead of party politics, a man that carries respect on both sides of the isle, a man that gets things done.

This is the side of George Bush that you won't hear outside of Texas because the media doesn't want you to.

Luz
gore/clinton divide people along lines of race, rich/poor, and party ~ bush brings people together...

htismaqe
10-05-2000, 08:46 AM
And finally, I want to address this class warfare that has been propagated this last eight years.

It seems that there is an ever increasing amount of people that feel you are 'rich' if you make over $80k per year ~ as a couple (according to Gore/Clinton definitions).

If you fall into this bracket, understand that you are one of the 'rich' that Gore wants to soak!

Even if you restrict the debate, however, to bona fide millionaires it makes no sense. These people already have their money. Income Tax doesn't tax their existing money, only new income. It is moraly wrong to tax these people at a higher rate, but ironically, it doesn't punish them at all ~ IT JUST MAKES IT HARDER FOR THE REST OF US TO JOIN THEM IN WEALTH!

George gave a good example earlier of how he falls into the 'rich' tax classification, yet still works hard and hardly 'has it made' as some would like to imply.

I want to be wealthy. I want to be able to give my kids a head start in life by handing down to them the sum of my life's work. There is nothing ignoble about this.

Luz
don't get in my way...



[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 10-05-2000).]

Iron Chef
10-05-2000, 09:21 AM
Duck,

Bush was not referring to Mexico as a state. He was referring to foreign sources of oil as opec. Makes sense to ask our allies to help break the agreements set on limiting oil production, since higher prices will start building pressure toward inflation in our economy. I like the Gore plan of riding bikes and shutting down all production facilities till we can invent a "clean" source of energy. His 10 billion dollar investment should do the trick. IF THERE WAS SERIOUSLY ANY FORM OF "CLEAN-RENEWABLE" energy on the horizon that could fuel this nation and its economy, don't you think the private sector would be all over it. Any investor involved would be the next Bill Gates.

But hey, this is from a man that stated a woman picking up cans on the side of the road to pay for her prescription drugs, drove from Iowa to Boston in her 6 mile per gallon Winnabego. SP? Wonder how she could afford the gas on the trip, the Winnabego itself, let alone live with all the damage she was inflicting upon the enviornment driving the gas guzzler. I know! She must have stopped every mile or so to pick up cans (saving the enviornment) and paying for her gas with the cans. She will probably have to go without her drugs this month.

mikey23545
10-05-2000, 09:27 AM
Duck-

What did he know and when did he know it? I'm not sure of the time line. Premature? The plan was either in place and moving or (gasp) the suggestion by Bush was acted on and is now moving forward.

Here is the key, you are saying Bush made a gaffe by his suggestion just because algore stated "Well they don't"

Bush makes enough misstatements without having to try and make one up. Never trust what algore says, he'll make you look foolish by backing him and his statements of opinion.

AustinChief
10-05-2000, 09:44 AM
This mornings OC Register reported that Gore "exaggerated" about being in Texas with the FEMA director during the recent floods there.

It was true that Gore was in Texas at the same time as the FEMA director. However, he was there for a FUND RAISER!!!!!!!!!!!!! He never went to the disaster areas or was involved in any way with helping out.
http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 10:15 AM
On the topic of being honest with people, let's not forget that Bush also tried to push that statement put out by the Republican staff of that senate committee on budgets before the Gore plan was even released as a factual statement provided by a bipartisan senate committee studying the topic. So let's not claim that only one side is trying to misrepresent the facts...

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 10:19 AM
Luz,
Again, that is on the state level. Washington is a whole different animal. I'm sure Clinton used the same lines of getting both parties to work together and pointed out some favorable things in his favor. But until they get there, you do not know. That is my point. You can guess or whatever, but you just don't know. It is VERY hard to get bipartisan efforts to work, and with some of Bush's proposals, I'm thinking it will be a chore for him to get that to work in Washington, especially if the Demo's claim some more seats in the house and senate. I've heard a lot from Texas since I have a lot of relatives living down there, and let's just say a person will see Bush based on the light that they want to see Bush in. Same for Gore.

As far as the education issue goes, I'm not real sure what they really accomplished. Apparently they've still got high school completion rates and SAT scores and teacher salaries that rank near the bottom of the country. I was talking to one of my old professors here in Berkeley and he said that one of the reasons Texas state test scores improved is because they decreased the number of tests they actually give students, and made them easier. Now I don't know if this is true or not, I have read some articles in the Dallas Morning News raising this topic last year, but it does raise the question to me that if Bush is going to leave the testing and educational things to the local and state level, then isn't it possible that some of these people might try to structure it so that their test scores go up and then they can say "hey look at us, we improved"?

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 10:20 AM
Sorry, server problems here... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by DaWolf (edited 10-05-2000).]

AustinChief
10-05-2000, 10:20 AM
Absolutely agree, DaWolf. Any "partisan" studies, reports, papers, should be thrown away as campaign fodder and not used or presented as official numbers.

I'd rather hear numbers from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) or the OMB (Office of Management and Budget), and require both candidates to use those numbers when arguing their positions...<BR>

Gracie Dean
10-05-2000, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>I'm sure Clinton used the same lines of getting both parties to work together and pointed out some favorable things in his favor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No offense DaWolf, but that is a VERY wrongheaded assumption. Truth be told, the fact that the converse was Clinton's true style is probably one of the unheralded undercurrents in the "right"'s pursuit of him. I really do not have the time to chronicle the numerous times Clinton would "talk" bi-partisan compromise behind closed doors, shake the other side's hands, and agree that a solution had been reached. He would then proceed directly to a press conference where he would tell the American people;

"Ah tried, and ah tried . . . to get something good for the American people. Buh-t my opponents are more interested in letting old people eat dog food than enacting TRUE reform [ie, my way or the highway], and AH CAAN'T STAND FOR IT."

The most notable instance surrounded the "republican shutdown of government." Why would anyone approach him in a conciliatory manner after being treated like that? How can you trust a word he says. You got the agreement. You got the handshake, then you get hosed.

gh4chiefs
10-05-2000, 10:34 AM
I really don't think the Russians would care if an American president embellishes anecdotes at home. They might be a little more concerned if he has trouble speaking his own language and understanding international politics.

Howzabout Bush trying to squirm away from the Justice nomination question? Good thing Leher and Gore didn't let him get away with it. Look up how he addresses the issue when speaking to the Religious Right groups. Then look at the debate transcript. Why the embarrassing squiggle? Is he trying to fool America at large, or the Religious Right? Be honest, Bush. Be a man, tell us where you stand. Don't just say, "Fuzzy number! Invent a calculator! Phoney number!" We need more substance than that. If a number is phoney, show us where its false.

Every poll taken after the debate sez Gore won (even Bush supporters). Lucky for the Repubs only 50 mil watched. Now is his chance to clear up his ineptness before the later debates come around. There will be more voters watching as the election draws nigh. He could lose a lot more ground with another performance like that.

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 10:36 AM
Regarding the tax cut debate the question is which will benefit the country more. Bush apparently will give $561 billion back to that 1%, but only spend combined total of $382 billion on education, national defense, health, and prescription drugs.

So is it better to give all that money back to the richest so they can put it back into the economy, or spend more on programs to affect the less fortunate? This is where democrats and republicans are obviously on different sides...

Gracie Dean
10-05-2000, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR> Howzabout Bush trying to squirm away from the Justice nomination question? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You mean like AlGore saying [very near approximation] "i will not have a litmus test for abortion rights, but I assure you that I will not nominate a justice who will reduce a woman's right to chose." What does he think a litmus test is?

Iron Chef
10-05-2000, 10:42 AM
All politicians lie with numbers. It is to be expected. If you believe 1/4 of the programs Gore or Bush espousing will actually happen, then you are in for a big let down. Much like Bronco fans.

Gore is a hoot! He lies for the sake of lying just to make himself look better. Talk about insecurity.

On the education issue, Texas has a whole set of challenges many states do not. Very high hispanic population, with children still learning the english language as they enter school. Many first generation families struggling to survive, verses completely focusing on childrens education.

Texas is a right to work state, without a state income tax. Teachers have received a 30% pay raise over the last 5 years. Would bet as a percentage of income, verse lets say, a US postal service employee, public school teachers in the state of Texas are doing better than teachers in boston.

It all comes down to their core beliefs and trust.

Gore - Big government, more taxes.
Bush - Less government, less taxes.

Gore - pro abortion
Bush - anti abortion

All else they promise, you have to take with a grain of salt. Gores grain is just much bigger.

[This message has been edited by Red Till Dead (edited 10-05-2000).]

Devin Vierth
10-05-2000, 10:43 AM
This story is incredible. Check it out..

http://www.nypost.com/news/12221.htm



------------------
bk

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 10:45 AM
But JC, that is what I am saying. I am not saying Clinton actually DID get both sides to come together or anything, I am just saying he also spun things in his favor when he was getting elected. You know if you are a Democrat then all these good things about Clinton come out about how he is a moderate and how he attempts to work with people and how he is all inclusive and has all this diversity in his cabinet and all that stuff. If you are on the other side obviously you point out stuff like you just did. Same thing with Bush. He is probably not all he and his supporters make him out to be, but if trying to get elected that is what gets pushed, same way Clinton pushed his stuff when trying to get elected, whether accurate or not. Clinton spent a lot of time saying "See, I did this, I did that" which he may not have actually done behind closed doors or whatever, but he uses the perception to his advantage. And I don't see why Bush would be all that different in that regards...

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 10:49 AM
"The unauthorized side-by-side shots at the first debate emphasized that Bush is a few inches shorter and slighter than Gore - a comparison that could be to Gore's advantage."

LOL. It is amazing how much emphasis this country puts on appearances...

<BR>

Devin Vierth
10-05-2000, 10:53 AM
Wasn't it the Hitler type mustache that kept Dewey from beating Truman in the 50's?



------------------
bk

Gracie Dean
10-05-2000, 10:53 AM
The difference is that DEMOCRATS in Texas will tell you that about Bush.

This is one of the most frustrating aspects of the last eight years and the erosion of credability as coin of the realm in politics. People assume that EVERY politician lies like Clinton, just because he did it best.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it seems that you're saying. Bush says he's a uniter. Clinton said he was a uniter. Clinton was lying, therefore Bush probably is too. But even Bush's biggest foes [that know him from Texas and actually observed him govern] will grant him this one, he does try to do the right thing, regardless of whose idea it was or who will gain politically from it.

Raiderhader
10-05-2000, 10:56 AM
please post your 'source' for #198...The numbers seem dubious at best.

Iron Chef
10-05-2000, 10:59 AM
Speaking about looks. How is it that Gore is seriously gaining scalp area on the back/top of head one day, then disappears the next.

Looking up at my family tree, may need to learn his secret.

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 11:02 AM
JC,
Again, it depends on who you talk to. Certainly there may be some democrats who will give Bush props. And I agree that we probably should give guys a benefit of a doubt sometimes.

But my original point has been twisted out of proportion here. I said that Bush did some things on the state level, but we could not assume that this will be the case on the national level until he is actually there, because as with ANY politician, you never know until they are on the job. That is my thing about Bush. You cannot make any difinitive statements until he is actually on the job doing it. Anything else is an assumption. I do not live in Texas, I do not know if you live in Texas, and the majority of us who do not live in Texas just have to go by what the sides tell us. Obviously Bush will push his positives and the other side pushes his negatives, and people choose their sides. I've got relatives in Ft Worth and Austin whose opinions obviously differ. It all depends in which light you choose to see him in...

AustinChief
10-05-2000, 11:05 AM
DaWolf, we agreed that partisan numbers are bogus. Yet you just used partisan "Gore" numbers to criticize Bush's tax cut plan. Please stop it! You are now officially speaking out both sides of your mouth...
http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/eek.gif

Iron Chef
10-05-2000, 11:05 AM
In response to #198. What effiecient, cost effective government programs benefit the "less fortunate".

The private sector drives this economy not the government. Government can only slow it down through over spending (higher borrowing costs) and regulations. Previous democrat congress. Or take off the reigns, current republican congress.

More money in the private sector drives the economy, and thus creates more jobs! The best way to help the "less fortunate" is to give them opportunities to earn a living.

scooter
10-05-2000, 11:12 AM
My biggest take home from the debates was the demeanor of the two candidates.

Bush seemed cool and relaxed. Willing to deal with the issues and wanting to do the right thing. Some of his numbers didn't add up, but the exact details are what you pay policy wonks for. Over all I'd say Bush confirmed my vote.

Gore seemed flustered, almost desperate. And he came across as arrogant, and condescending. The constant sighs and bullying for mic time was outrageous. His constant harping about 'tax breaks for 1%' only proved that he'd focused grouped the phrase and confirmed my opinion that he's a political animal like Clinton. Gore confirmed every reason I have to dispise him.

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 11:12 AM
Titus:
"Bush Budget 2001-10" (www.georgewbush.com, 9/5/00)

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 11:15 AM
Fly,
I didn't critisize. If you have numbers to debate those, let's see them, and I will apologize for being incorrect. I just put the numbers out there (using the word "apparently") and said "So is it better to give all that money back to the richest so they can put it back into the economy, or spend more on programs to affect the less fortunate? This is where democrats and republicans are obviously on different sides." I don't call that critisizing...


[This message has been edited by DaWolf (edited 10-05-2000).]

Devin Vierth
10-05-2000, 11:16 AM
One thing that Gore kept doing that I thought was real irritating was when he would start his rebuttal with 'Bush and I agree on .....'. It was nice the George W. brought up the topic first. I thought that was a big slap in the face of Gore.

------------------
bk

Iron Chef
10-05-2000, 11:18 AM
I repeat, what effiecient, cost effective government programs help the "less fortunate"

scooter
10-05-2000, 11:20 AM
And why is everyone talking about the 'cost' of Bush's tax cuts, but not talking about the cost of Gore's social spending?

The worst numbers I've seen show Bush giving up about a third of any surplus on tax cuts. Gore on the other hand outspends projected surplusses by twice. This means that Gore would either raise taxes, cut other spending (read defense) or return to deficit spending to attempt half of what he proposes.

If anyone's numbers don't add up it's Gores'

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 11:25 AM
The major reason I'm bringing up Bush is because the majority of people posting here seem to be Bush Backers, and you can't have a debate if everyone agrees on everything. Personally I'm not impressed with either. I am generally in the middle here and was hoping McCain would get the nomination, I like him better than either of these two guys... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

AustinChief
10-05-2000, 11:43 AM
DaWolf, you said that partisan literature, including budgets, were bogus. Then you turn around and use them.

I suggest you go to CNN.com and check out their evaluation of the claims, counterclaims, and the validity of the numbers if you doubt me.

CNN is not exactly the rock of conservatism. And even they say what Gore spouted about the 1% was plain wrong.

Please, you can't have it both ways... unless you're a liberal...

Raiderhader
10-05-2000, 11:46 AM
that site is not up or is no longer. I cant really look at the exact text, but let's look at the numbers.

Let's assume that these numbers, first of all, represent all 10 years worth of spending for these classifications.

The tax cut for the 1%'ers per annum would be 56B.

Spending on 'education, national defense, health, and prescription drugs' would be 38B per annum.

Now, looking at the 2001 FY budget for the U.S. Govt, it is 1.8 Trillion Dollars--for JUST 2001. That would mean that if we spent the same amount for 10 years we would be spending 18 Trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

Of that 18 Trillion, or 18000 Billion, we would be spending 382 Billion on the items listed above or roughly 2% of the budgets. This cant be right because looking at the FY 2001 budget Defense spending alone represents 35% of the budget.

So let's assume that the 382 Billion and 562 Billion are per year figures. Doing so would mean that according to this website, Bush would propose giving 5620 Billion or 5.6 Trillion back to the 1%ers over the next 10 years. Of course, the 562 Billion alone if applied to the 2001 budget would create a 380 budget deficit for this year.

Somehow these numbers dont add up.

Raiderhader
10-05-2000, 11:52 AM
Further, the last report from the IRS stated that the top 1% of the nation paid approx 45% in total revenues into the treasury. using the OMB receipts figures for 2001, the IRS received about 2 Trillion dollars. 45% of that would be 900 Billion dollars (for just one year mind you). If we gave them a 562B tax cut per year that would be an effective cut of over 50% in their taxes. Something tells me Dems would be clucking like chickens if this were to be true. If on the other hand the number was 56B per annum, that would mean an effective cut of 6%.

Again, of course, I have to assume those numbers to be true on a web site that no longer functions.

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 11:58 AM
Fly,
Dude, again you are reading whatever you want to into the post based on your viewpoints. Again, I used the words "apparently" and I did not draw a distinction between right or wrong. Even the Bush camp admits that the richest get such a large amount back because "they pay so much in the first place." I just put the numbers out there and said it could work or it could not work depending on how you looked at the numbers. Now if those numbers are NOT representative of the top 1 percent I apologize, but those are the numbers I found. I am not trying to pass them as the definitive numbers. Here is what I got from CNN:

""Well, the man is practicing fuzzy math again," Bush offered by way of rebuttal. "The facts are, after my plan the wealthiest Americans pay more taxes than the percentage of the whole than they do today."

Is that a fact? Well, the bipartisan Joint Tax Committee of Congress analyzed Bush's tax plan and said that after it was mostly phased in, in 2005, persons making over $200,000 a year would be paying 27.4 percent of federal income taxes, exactly the same share as under current law.

By that measure, Bush is wrong.

The same bipartisan analysis showed persons making over $100,000 a year would get 51 percent of the money under Bush's tax cut plan."
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/04/fact.check/index.html

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 12:05 PM
Titus:
That is supposed to be the Bush/Cheney official site where they have their numbers listed. I am assuming their server is down or something, because at the moment I cannot get through. I just have those numbers here in an e-mail in text form citing that web site. Thus the use of the words "apparently." Again, if it is bogus, I apologize. But it is the best I could do with the restraints I've got here at work while trying to debate on this topic... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

Iron Chef
10-05-2000, 12:05 PM
In times past you were called a serf when you gave a third of your crop to the fuedal lord for protection on his lands.

In todays Clinton/Gore world, giving up to 50% of your earnings for protection on OUR lands, is called fairness!!!

We have come a long way, baby!

KC_red
10-05-2000, 12:22 PM
It seems to me that this is more about the fact that the 1%ers are making the largest portion of the money. If we gave these 1%ers, a tax cut equal to the amount of spending on these programs that are being held against the amount would everyone still be this worried about the cut to the 1%ers. I think so. Why?

Because what people are upset about is the fact that the 1%ers are making such a lopsided amount of the money and are generally jealous about this fact.

AlGore is using this fact to skew the perception that an across the borad tax cut will have, by comparing it to the money spent on these other programs. If we did not give the 1%ers the tax cut and gave it to the 99@ers, would we all feel any different?

And further to that how many people are being taxed at the same rate as the 1%ers. Can anyone do the research and find out. Does anyone want to talk with real information or just what we are hearing from AlGore?

Let me see if I can go find the facts.

BRB.

Oh yeah, feel free to put me in my place while I go do some real research.

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 12:32 PM
Oregon,

Like I said, there is no debating the fact that they are getting such a large amount back because they pay such a large amount in the first place. The debate between sides only comes up in the philosophical belief of:

Republican: The economy will be better off if we give them more money back to invest back into the economy.

Democrat: The money would be better spent giving more targeted cuts and using the rest of the money on programs.

That is a philisophical difference. The numbers to me don't make all that much of a difference because it is obvious Bush wants to give a great deal back to the upper class and it is obvious that Gore wants to spend a great deal on government programs. My point was it is only right or wrong based on which you put more priority in and which you think will help the economy and/or society in the long run. Everyone's opinion is going to differ on this based on philosophy...

Gracie Dean
10-05-2000, 12:40 PM
I've said before and I have to say again. the term "targeted tax cut" is an anethema to me. Bush rightly pointed out the thousands of IRS agents it will take to sort-out Gore's intricate plan. What he didn't point out so well was that we will be living our lives according to the dictates of a government form.

Should I send my kids to college A or college B? Well I can deduct all of the tuition at college B, so [s]he'll go there.

Should we have another kid? We got a tax break for one, but won't get any more breaks from here on out. Put on that rubber.

I love my girl and would love to propose, but that will cost us $XX on our return. Let's live in sin a little while [1-4 years] longer.

That untold truth is that a lot of people will cast their vote thinking a "targeted tax cut" is target to them, only to wake up in early April and realize IF ONLY they'd lived their lives more in keeping with Gore's wishes it wopuld have, but now we're SOL. The government gets to keep the money and we'll blame ourselves for not "living right."

And trust me, if this gains traction the tax code will become increasingly engineered. As in MN, taxes for cotton gloves are $XX and for leather gloves are $XX times 2, or 3. Envision tax credits for the Ford F7%$us and tax penalties for the Explorer, tax credits for cellulose home insulation and tax penalties for hardwood floors. Also imagine the INCREASED importance of special interests with this system in play.

Why not say, you make the money, the government taxes it, the government spends its portion. And if anything is left over, you get back your portion of the surplus to do with as you wish?

diz
10-05-2000, 12:44 PM
Gore: Fuzzy Math

Bush: Fuzzy English

Me: Fuzzy comprehension of these two "leaders"

KC_red
10-05-2000, 12:57 PM
Ok here are some facts that we can all agree on. I will use Married filing jointly as a default for these figures.

15% Tax rate: 43,050
28% Tax Rate: 43,051 - 104,050
31% Tax Rate: 104,051 - 158,550
36% Tax Rate: 158,551 - 283,150
39.6% Tax Rate: 283,151+

Now, with that being said, everyone that makes over 283,151+ would have to fall into the 1%er tax cut issue as well. Just what is the average yearly income of a 1%er? Now that would be interesting infomation. If anyone can find it or calculate it I would like to know.

Another tidbit of information, the top 20% of this country makes about 8 times more than the bottom 20% of this country.

Is it really fair to say that a 1%er deserves to not get a tax cut because they make more money by percentage than a 99%er, or a 80%er, or 60%er, or 40%er, or a 20%er?.

They are already getting taxed at a higher rate than those beneath, why should they contine to be overburdened even further, as tax rate decreases are given? We are assuming that since we can't give the 1%er a decrease we cannot give anyone in the highest tax rate a decrease also.

Food for thought.

AustinChief
10-05-2000, 12:58 PM
DaWolf, your point is that the rich, whoever they are, will get a tax cut. Nevermind that they are themselves responsible for 60-70% of the taxes paid in every year.

Gosh, there must be something terribly wrong giving those bad rich folks a cut. Afterall, ya can't have all those free programs if those "rich" folks aren't paying for them...

You seem to like to encourage class warfare... I'm am disappointed...



[This message has been edited by TheFly (edited 10-05-2000).]

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 01:04 PM
Fly,
Again, you are the one putting words in my mouth. Where am I encouraging class warfare? I have specificallt said that Bush plans to give more back to the richer BECAUSE THEY PAY MORE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Bush has himself said this. There is no denying this. I did not say this was right or wrong. What I did say is that the difference in philosophy as to where the money should go is where the argument arises. I have also pointed out that Al Gore intends to spend a hell of a lot on government programs. I do not recall ever saying that one road was right and the other was wrong.

Please tell me how I am encouraging class warfare? Stop reading what you want into my posts and stop putting words in my mouth...

AustinChief
10-05-2000, 01:23 PM
DaWolf, if I'm wrong, I apologize.

It just seems to me that in general we are all too willing to throw around numbers to justify our positions, when the numbers don't mean a damn thing.

And I hate "invented" class warfare. America is about making your opportunities, not being "owed" them...<P>

Raiderhader
10-05-2000, 01:25 PM
ok...after the CNN report, I HAD to go find this joint report on Bush's plan. I can't find it, but I did find the Joint Committee's website that lists the reports.

I found this: Distribution of Federal Tax Liabilities by Income Class for 2000. (http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf)

In this report, it states the top 1% bracket starts at just under 300k (296k). They earned 1.1 Trillion of 7.5 Trillion in Total income (14% of total) and paid 297B in taxes or 33% of the total collected taxes on Personal income for 2000.

Romel
10-05-2000, 01:26 PM
The number in Oregon Chief Fan's reply #288 are correct; you can find them on page 69 of your 1999 1040 Instruction Booklet. It should also be mentioned how the rates apply. Only that part of one's income that falls into each bracket is taxed at that rate.

For example, suppose a couple makes $100,000. Here's how the tax rate schedule applies to them:

The first $43,050 is taxed at 15%: that's $6,457.50

Now, ONLY the money between $43,050 and $100,000 (a total of $56,950) is taxed at 28%: that's $15,946. Thus, their total Federal Income tax is $6,457.50 + $15,946=$22,403.5, an overall rate of 22.4%.

The point is that, though this couple is in the 28% tax bracket, they don't pay 28% of their income in taxes. They paid 22.4%.

Now, let's suppose they made $200,000, which uts them in the 36% bracket. Then, their total tax would be $40,432.50 for the first $158,550 of that plus 36% of the rest
((200,000-158,550)*.36)=$14,922: a total of $55,354.5 or 27.7%.

[This message has been edited by DanT (edited 10-05-2000).]

gh4chiefs
10-05-2000, 01:35 PM
Post #211 sez Bush seemed cool and relaxed, Gore seemed flustered. I got the opposite impression. Bush was so flustered he stumbled and fumbled over his words in a bad way. A president should be able to communicate his thoughts, and it really helps to use coherent language. His teacher wudda flunked him. Here's a few examples of how "cool and relaxed" he was:

"Well, here's what I've said: I've said, Jim, I've said..."

"I think what the next president ought to do is to -- is to promote a culture of life in America, is the life of the elderly and the life of those living all across the country, life of the unborn."

"I said I would make sure that -- that women would be safe to use the drug."

"But this'll be an interesting moment for the Russians to step up and lead as well, be a wonderful time for the -- for the Russia to step into the Balkans..."

"We're going to spend $25 trillion -- we're going to collect $25 trillion of revenue over the next 10 years, and we're going to -- projected to spend $21 trillion."

more...<P>

gh4chiefs
10-05-2000, 01:36 PM
(cont. from last post)

"And in return for flexibility, we're going to ask you to show us whether or not -- and we ask to post the results on the Internet."

"But that's the time when you're tested not only -- it's a time to test your meddle.

But what I would do, first and foremost, is I would get in touch with..."

"It's time to have a leader that doesn't put off, you know, tomorrow what we should do today."

"Well, I just, you know, I think that people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life."

"And so I -- look, I'm going to -- what you need to know about me is I'm going to uphold the law. I'm going to have an attorney general that enforces the law; that if the time for -- the time for campaign funding reform is after the election, this man has outspent me,..."

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 01:38 PM
Fly,
No prob. We're all Chiefs fans. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif See my #225, I also do not believe the numbers are the primary issue, it is the difference in philosophy.

htismaqe
10-05-2000, 01:54 PM
I want to respond to:

DaWolf
Regular
Post# 193 posted 10-05-2000 11:19 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luz,
Again, that is on the state level. Washington is a whole different animal. I'm sure Clinton used the same lines of getting both parties to work together and pointed out some favorable things in his favor. But until they get there, you do not know.

DaWolf,

What we DO know, is that Gore is incapable of uniting both sides. He has arguably a 24 history of failure in this area, and by anyone's standards, an eight year track record of just the opposite ~ devisevness, partisanship, and fearmongering.

So you can choose from Gore who has had a chance on the national level and failed miserably, or you can choose Bush who succeeded on the State level to the point where even the opposite party praises him for it (this is a matter of public record ~ not opinion).

Are you telling me that there is not a clear distinction here?

Luz
imo, you have to be very heavy into justification to claim that bush doesn't carry this point ~ hands down...

DaKCMan AP
10-05-2000, 02:07 PM
I just want to post this article, I said something earlier about Gore's comment that we should look into alternitive fuels and mentioned nothing about lowering the price of gas. It sounds like their plan is to eventually put up windmill's and solar power houses, should help us a lot over the next five years as inflation increases due to the high gas prices of car fuel. I guess I need to find a way to run my car with solar panels and a windmill...
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,39275,00.html

Morphius
bitter...

Iron Chef
10-05-2000, 02:08 PM
Duck,

Nice list of Bush quotes. I guess that someone that is trying to come up with an HONEST answer to a question stumbles a bit.

Unlike Gore that will lie when it suits him, and avoid the questions to harp on his pre-programmed answers. Gore is like a child, when he doesn't have an answer or gets caught, just lie away or avoid the issue.

Heres one for you. Gore made Bush look like a world class orator on this one.

Several weeks back on one of the Sunday morning talk shows the host asked Gore the following:
Set it up by asking Gore if he believed in the death penalty. Believe Gore said yes, if he didn't host set up question, with would you up hold the death penalty if it was the law of the land. Either way Gore said yes.

The following question was classic (and from a liberal host!) VP Gore, WOULD YOU EXECUTE A WOMAN THAT WAS 7 MONTHS PREGNANT?!!!!!!

Gore himmed and hawwwed for about 3 minutes. Emmm, ahhh, welll, dahhhhh, hahhhh, finally came up with, I would follow provisions of Roe vs Wade.

Talk about sounding stupid. Made the republican candidate sound brilliant. Hope Bush nails him with same question in round table debate.

[This message has been edited by Red Till Dead (edited 10-05-2000).]

Cannibal
10-05-2000, 02:13 PM
While Gore has shown at (a few) times that he will cross party lines in terms of voting, it is probable that his policies will also prevent him from being able to avoid the partisanship in Wahsington. But frankly I don't know that either of these guys really will. Having said that, to be fair if I am saying that we won't know about Bush until he takes over, we won't know about Gore until he takes over. Sure there are certain assumptions we can make based on certain things, but that is a much different thing than knowing that when he takes over he will do it. Gore is much more liberal than Clinton and Bush has already stated that he leans farther to the right of conservatism after he selected Cheney, and neither position lends itself to bringing forth bipartisanship in Washington, IMO...

gh4chiefs
10-05-2000, 02:36 PM
DeadRed....I'm not sure if I accept that eloquence is wed to dishonesty, or that inability to speak clearly is the sign of an honest man. Lets not embarrass our country by electing a man that has trouble forming coherent sentences on a national stage. Certainly we can do better than that. What happens when he has to go international? We'll be the laughing stock of the world.

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-05-2000, 02:42 PM
What do you mean "will be" the laughing stock of the world. what exactly do you think the worlds reaction to a dope smoking liar who sticks cigars in the "areas" of chubby interns, impeached and should have been "FIRED" like any officer in ANY of our military branches would have been. Not to mention pimpin' out Lincoln's bed to Chineese, etc.....and now the "Greek" army would like to share a "don't ask don't tell" foxhole with our soldiers.

Bush can do NOTHING to gain disrespect that hasn't been done in the last 8 years....

I'd rather have a man stumble over a couple of words than have him look me in the eye, shake his finger and LIE.

Iron Chef
10-05-2000, 02:47 PM
Duck,

Guess thats where we differ. Would prefer a person that thinks through his answers, so they don't just fly out of his mouth, verse someone who only thought before speaking is what do they want to hear.

The real embarresment would be electing someone that said:
-Invented the internet
-Mom used to sing him to bed with the union lable song
-Woman drove here in her Winnabego that has to pick up cans on the side of the road to pay for her prescription drugs.
The list is almost endless.

Can see him now, meeting with Putin. "You know my Mom was a communist, almost got busted at the McCarthy hearings."

scooter
10-05-2000, 02:57 PM
UD, so Bush isn't a Shakespearian actor in his delivery. So what. At least his answers sound honest and are direct answers to direct questions. Every thing that came out of Gores' mouth sounded focus grouped and polled. And they very seldom had anything to do with the question being asked. Exactly how many times did Gore repeat his mantra of 'tax cuts for the top 1%', regardless of the question being asked?

Bush dealt with the issues and the questions. Gore dealt with politics.

Mark M [BornChiefs]
10-05-2000, 03:01 PM
I really appreciated Gore's response to mean ol' W mentioning his Buhdist temple $$, etc...and he wouldn't resort to name calling....3 months ago Algores stooges were smacking "W" around on tv like a pinata...until a focus group determined that negativity was "turning off the womyn voters"..and he turned right to Oprah with his sensativity.....what a sensative man...ahhhhhh

I would like to do some bedtime ballet with his daughter though...

gh4chiefs
10-05-2000, 03:04 PM
Iowa....the world laughed at us because we were so childishly partisan that we would go through a pretend impeachment after spending $60 million to catch the president with his pants down. The world doesn't think hanky-panky is that big a deal, and was embarrassed by the Repubs publishing the details. Divisive partisanship at its most assinine broadcast across the globe.

C'mon now, guys. We all know that Gore never said that he invented the internet. Thats embellishing, and we spank Gore for that. Lets not become the enemy.

gh4chiefs
10-05-2000, 03:09 PM
Ck_In....I dunno, guy. Seems like Bush stumbled and fumbled until he thought he saw a place to blurt out some canned line like, "fuzzy math," or "guess he invented the calculator." Both guys were coached and fed lines for the debate. Bush just doesn't have the capability to spew the lines and still hold a coherent conversation. Lets just hope that our next president is at least smart enough to do that.

scooter
10-05-2000, 03:11 PM
I do think Gore claimed to be responsible for the creation of the internet, but that aside do you deny that he claimed;

1. Being the inspiration for Love Story
2. The cleanup of love canal
3. Nodding off to 'the union label'
4. Lying about his mother-in-law's meds

Just to name four. The man will lie about anything, anytime if he thinks it'll get him a vote.

As for bj-gate, it was and is an embarrassment. A grown man using his position to sexually harrass an intern young enough to be his daughter, then spending seven months lying about it and letting a multi-million dollar investigation continue. That behaviour is inexcusable and borderline sociopathic.

It disgusts me whenever I think about Clinton representing the U.S. abroad.

scooter
10-05-2000, 03:15 PM
UD, I guess we can chalk it up to differences of perception. Bush struck me as being real and attempting to respond to the question. Gore struck me as trotting out polled and focus grouped standbys.

As I've said previously, I don't care if my president can recite lines like an Oscar winner. I'm concerned with the substance. On that ground Bush is a hands down choice.