Webb v Allen Debate (1 Viewer)

[The_Virginian]

Having watched last nights debate between Jim Webb and George Allen,
I must admit I was fairly disappointed with Webb's performance.

Jim Webb seemed nervous, unsure of himself, and over reliant on his notes.
He looked down too much and fumbled with his thoughts and words.

Allen, on the other hand, articulated his thoughts more effectively and stayed on his message. Although he did appear a bit too friendly, trying too hard to be charismatic - when he's not. One time he winked at the camera, which I didn't much care for.
Allen played the predictable republican game plan - 'Webb is a bleeding heart liberal, tied to Hillary, Kerry and Kennedy, will raise taxes and not be effective with national defense. Add the 'Family Values' bit on gay marriage, and Allen played the GOP poster boy to a tee.

What was Webb's message? I'm not sure, something about some islands near Taiwan and a threat from China.

I am afraid Allen delivered the knockout blow to Webb in this debate.
He should cruise to victory now, unless he happens to inadvertently drop the 'N' bomb on someone before the election.

I'm still voting for Webb though, I will be anti-republican until Bush is gone.

 

[aps]

Having watched last nights debate between Jim Webb and George Allen,
I must admit I was fairly disappointed with Webb's performance.

*sigh* Me too, Virginian. However, he made some good points about Allen misrepresenting his position. Unfortunately for Webb, he doesn't want to play the dirty politics that Allen clearly has an affinity for (and most republicans).

Jim Webb seemed nervous, unsure of himself, and over reliant on his notes.
He looked down too much and fumbled with his thoughts and words.

The Washington Post said the same thing about looking at his notes. He is just not a relaxed guy.

Allen, on the other hand, articulated his thoughts more effectively and stayed on his message. Although he did appear a bit too friendly, trying too hard to be charismatic - when he's not. One time he winked at the camera, which I didn't much care for.
Allen played the predictable republican game plan - 'Webb is a bleeding heart liberal, tied to Hillary, Kerry and Kennedy, will raise taxes and not be effective with national defense. Add the 'Family Values' bit on gay marriage, and Allen played the GOP poster boy to a tee.

Allen is such a scumbag. He says he wants to talk about the "issues" but all he can do is take cheap shots at Webb. I wish Webb had been more combative with Allen to show Allen that he's just as tough as Allen is. His lumping Webb with Hillary, Kerry, and Kennedy was so pathetic.

What was Webb's message? I'm not sure, something about some islands near Taiwan and a threat from China.

You have to admit that that was a serious blow to Allen. He was completely stumped. It was beautiful!

I am afraid Allen delivered the knockout blow to Webb in this debate.
He should cruise to victory now, unless he happens to inadvertently drop the 'N' bomb on someone before the election.

I disagree about the knock-out blow. Substantively, Allen did not do better than Webb. Delivery-wise, yes. Did you notice that Allen ignored the question about secrecy? He's talking about the internet? I wish Webb had focused more on the fact that, unlike Allen, he has been in harm's way. He mentioned it, but he should have stated more on this subject. He did point out that Allen has voted 97% of the time with the White House. I think many of people are sick of the White House. And Warner has just come out and spoken out negatively on Iraq. Maybe that will help too.

I'm still voting for Webb though, I will be anti-republican until Bush is gone.

I'm a democrat, so I'll be voting for Webb. I have mentioned this in other threads but Northern Virginia went democrat in November 2004 for the first time since LBJ. Tim Kaine won Loudon and Prince William County for the first time in many years (I don't know the actual number). Mark Warner did not win those two counties when he won the governor race. There have been many democrats who have moved into Northern Virginia, so it's possible that maybe Webb has a shot. Maybe?

 

[BWG]

Allen is such a scumbag. He says he wants to talk about the "issues" but all he can do is take cheap shots at Webb. I wish Webb had been more combative with Allen to show Allen that he's just as tough as Allen is. His lumping Webb with Hillary, Kerry, and Kennedy was so pathetic.

I'm liberal, but this is the problem I have with Democrats. They let the cons define them. This is why the cons hate Clinton so much, he doesn't roll over and let them pummel him and that just infuriates them to no end.

Also, Democrats try to explain in depth their reasons why or what they want to do, this is why cons say they don't have any plans, they don't want to take the time (and who can blame them?) to listen. Also Democrats may have the same goals as other Dems, but just a slight difference of opinion of how to achieve those goals, so it looks like they are not together. Americans respond better to short phrases they can readily understand like, 'mushroom clouds' 'saw our heads off' 'over there instead of here' and on and on.

One thing for sure, soccer moms and craftsman dads may not know the difference between deficits and dialects, but they won't stand for you messing with their kids. Ya notice how much the polls dropped against the cons this past week?

 

[The_Virginian]

With Allen still leading in the polls, and by being the incumbent, I think Webb needed a decisive win in last nights debate to gain momentum before election day.
Webb didn't win the debate, and I'm not sure how many undecideds he swayed with last nights performance. Not enough I fear.

The Republicans have perfected a winning strategy for elections:
1) An onslaught of negative ads
2) Taxes
3) National Security
4) Family Values
5) Characterize every Democrat as a Liberal

Allen is a slimeball, but a smart one. He followed Karl Rove's proven gameplan last night, and I bet it gets him re-elected.

What is the Democrats strategy for winning elections?
(Republicans suck and we are the only other option) ?

I think the Dems need to get their heads in the game.

 

[Stinger]

I'm liberal, but this is the problem I have with Democrats. They let the cons define them.

Because they can't define themselves when it comes to the issues.

This is why the cons hate Clinton so much, he doesn't roll over and let them pummel him and that just infuriates them to no end.

Most cons don't have the desire to waste that much emotion on Clinton. He is disliked because he is a scumbag who treats women like dirt and thinks the American people are a bunch of fooks who google over his every word.

Also, Democrats try to explain in depth their reasons why or what they want to do, this is why cons say they don't have any plans, they don't want to take the time (and who can blame them?) to listen.

If they had something to say of substance they would be listend to, but just being angry and calling Bush dumb is very substanitive. The fact is they have no plans, they spout a lot of goals which we all can agree with but no plan to get there.

Also Democrats may have the same goals as other Dems, but just a slight difference of opinion of how to achieve those goals, so it looks like they are not together. Americans respond better to short phrases they can readily understand like, 'mushroom clouds' 'saw our heads off' 'over there instead of here' and on and on.

Actually Americans respong better to reality and substance than vague campaign slogans which the Dems spout, they also don't like the politics of personal destruction which the Dems love to engage in.

One thing for sure, soccer moms and craftsman dads may not know the difference between deficits and dialects,

They also don't like being insulted as being called stupid which you just did.

 

[BWG]

Most cons don't have the desire to waste that much emotion on Clinton.

You already lost with the first lie.
A con can't open his mouth without saying "It's Clinton's fault".

If they had something to say of substance they would be listend to, but just being angry and calling Bush dumb is very substanitive. The fact is they have no plans, they spout a lot of goals which we all can agree with but no plan to get there.

You prove my point. It's there. You don't care to invest the time to look.

Actually Americans respong better to reality and substance than vague campaign slogans which the Dems spout,

It's just what I said, the Dems take too long to explain themselves, while the cons have cheerleader slogans..'with us or against us', 'WMDs', 'Bring 'em on' doesn't take that much of an attention span.

They also don't like being insulted as being called stupid which you just did.

Another lie, but you again prove one more of my points, this time concerning attention span.

You only got this far:
"One thing for sure, soccer moms and craftsman dads may not know the difference between deficits and dialects,"

and didn't finish the remainder of my statement:
"but they won't stand for you messing with their kids. Ya notice how much the polls dropped against the cons this past week?"

 

[Navy Pride]

This is good news for Allen.........He should pull away in the polls now...........It alsos shows its hard to beat and incumbent when he is running against a rookie who has never been elected to anything.......

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
Most cons don't have the desire to waste that much emotion on Clinton.

You already lost with the first lie.
A con can't open his mouth without saying "It's Clinton's fault".

When it is they don't, since when does it take hate to point out reality?

Originally Posted by Stinger
If they had something to say of substance they would be listend to, but just being angry and calling Bush dumb is very substanitive. The fact is they have no plans, they spout a lot of goals which we all can agree with but no plan to get there.

You prove my point. It's there. You don't care to invest the time to look.

You prove mine, you couldn't respond with anything. And that your conclusions are based on false premises. You assume I haven't listened to what they say.

It's just what I said, the Dems take too long to explain themselves, while the cons have cheerleader slogans..'with us or against us', 'WMDs', 'Bring 'em on' doesn't take that much of an attention span.

Actually, "Bush is dumb so vote for us" doesn't take long at all to say.

Originally Posted by Stinger
They also don't like being insulted as being called stupid which you just did.

Another lie, ............

:rofl oh it's a lie that they don't like being insulted too? Geez this is like fish in a barrel. So you insult them twice now and think they like it. How elitist of you.

You only got this far:
"One thing for sure, soccer moms and craftsman dads may not know the difference between deficits and dialects,"

and didn't finish the remainder of my statement:
"but they won't stand for you messing with their kids. Ya notice how much the polls dropped against the cons this past week?"

Oh their's lots of things causing poll numbers to drop.

 

[BWG]

Cons are obsessed with Clinton, it just eats a Republican up that Clinton is so popular, all their time and efforts wasted as his approval ratings are one of the highest of all Presidents, past and present....LOL...:2wave:

You prove mine, you couldn't respond with anything.

As usual you're confused and assumed that I intended to spoon feed you. I was wrong in assuming that you could find something other than freepers.com and the weekly reader.

Actually, "Bush is dumb so vote for us" doesn't take long at all to say.

Just trying to take pity and put it in a sound bite cons are used to.


After your dishonesty of cutting off my statement, I broke it down in two parts to make it easier to understand

"One thing for sure, soccer moms and craftsman dads may not know the difference between deficits and dialects,
<continued>
but they won't stand for you messing with their kids".

and you still missed it.
If I knew there was someone to help, I would have included instructions.

Oh their's lots of things causing poll numbers to drop.

Collectivly, it's called 'Republicans can't govern' :2rofll:

 

[osep60]

I did not watch the debate, but for your information, most great liars are bold-faced and straight-faced. Allen is a great liar and therefore, is bound to be fluent. Just because web was nervous does not a bad senator make. Vote for the one that lies the least, and without any reservation, Allen is a bonafide liar.

 

[Stinger]

Cons are obsessed with Clinton, it just eats a Republican up that Clinton is so popular, all their time and efforts wasted as his approval ratings are one of the highest of all/quote]

:rofl it's the Dems who are obsessed with him else he would have gone away a long time ago. What is amazing is how they still worship such a low-life.

Presidents, past and present....LOL...:2wave:

As usual you're confused and assumed that I intended to spoon feed you. I was wrong in assuming that you could find something other than freepers.com and the weekly reader.

Actually it is you who are confused. The Democrat leadership announced for over a year they would come out with a plan and they never did.

After your dishonesty of cutting off my statement, I broke it down in two parts to make it easier to understand

Did you think the second part mitigated the first or something?

"One thing for sure, soccer moms and craftsman dads may not know the difference between deficits and dialects,
<continued>
but they won't stand for you messing with their kids".

and you still missed it.

No your insult of them was quite clear.

 

[Navy Pride]

This thread is not about Clinton but since it has been brought up I beleive that Clinton was a very intelligent man and could have been a decent president, but was one of the most corrupt people ever to grace the office of the presidency.......By his action he embarrassed the office more then any other man......I am still trying to explain his outrageous actions to my grnadchildren.......He was a disgrace........

 

[Stinger]

This thread is not about Clinton but since it has been brought up I beleive that Clinton was a very intelligent man and could have been a decent president, but was one of the most corrupt people ever to grace the office of the presidency.......By his action he embarrassed the office more then any other man......I am still trying to explain his outrageous actions to my grnadchildren.......He was a disgrace........

I watched him and his wife make their way up the political totem pole in Arkansas. He really isn't that intelligent, Hillary is the brains of the family. She is the one behind all the corrupt schemes they have been involed in. But then she isn't that notible either. Neither have any great accomplishments to speak of and his term as President is quite undistinguished except for the scandal they brought to the WH.

Quite frankly he is a dispicable man with no character to speak of, why the Dem's idolize him remains a mystery. And my they think they can simply dismiss conservatives by declaring "they just hate Clinton", as was done here, is laughable.

 

[BWG]

it's the Dems who are obsessed with him else he would have gone away a long time ago. What is amazing is how they still worship such a low-life

In spite of your denials, it is the cons who desperately NEED Clinton to blame and deflect the glare of their woeful inadequacies as they try to inpersonate an administration....LOL.

Actually it is you who are confused. The Democrat leadership announced for over a year they would come out with a plan and they never did.

If the Democrats have no plans or ideas, why do the cons steal or reject them? I don't care enough to look it up and state everything as fact, so this is from memory. It was just a few weeks ago, I don't remember who the con that stole the proposal was, but I believe it was Murtha who was just was about to present the bill or proposal when the con took the floor just before he (Murtha) was scheduled and introduced it to Congress as his own. I believe he only changed one word and it was accepted. Would it have been accepted if a Dem introduced it? With a Republican controlled Congress and committees that kill Dems ideas long before they get anywhere, the Dems only other avenue is amendments and those are routinely rejected as well.
Your confusion is in that the cons rejection of Dems ideas is not the same as no ideas.
Fortunately more and more Americans are seeing the cons for what they are, full of BS.
The cons 50% + 1 strategy is unraveling.
Hang in there, GWB needs you, I don't think a President has ever gotten a less than 30% approval rating.
Just a few things you won't find in William Kristol's weekly reader. :2funny:

No your insult of them was quite clear.

..and the desperation continues...:smile:

 

[Stinger]

In spite of your denials, it is the cons who desperately NEED Clinton to blame and deflect the glare of their woeful inadequacies as they try to inpersonate an administration....LOL.

In spite of your political ignorance the Reps don't need Clinton for anything but as long as the low-life remains the titular head of the Democrat party what he says and does will be an issue. If that makes you uneasy oh well.

If the Democrats have no plans or ideas,

IF? They have self admittedly run on the basis of they don't need issues. People have argued you here that they don't need them and shouldn't put them forth.







..and the desperation continues...:smile:[/quote]

 

[BWG]

Comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?

In spite of your political ignorance the Reps don't need Clinton for anything but as long as the low-life remains the titular head of the Democrat party what he says and does will be an issue. If that makes you uneasy oh well.

Cons can't make a complete sentence without using Clintons name.
The fact that he irritates you and the other cons is just an added bonus.
Bush still hangin' around the 30% mark? :joke:

IF? They have self admittedly run on the basis of they don't need issues. People have argued you here that they don't need them and shouldn't put them forth.

Your dishonesty continues in that you cherry pick someones comments and only respond to the out of context statement while ignoring the everything else.
Like I said, "Your confusion is in that the cons rejection of Dems ideas is not the same as no ideas."

Cons are funny. Funny cons. :2rofll:

 

[Stinger]

Comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?


Cons can't make a complete sentence without using Clintons name.
The fact that he irritates you and the other cons is just an added bonus.
Bush still hangin' around the 30% mark? :joke:


Your dishonesty continues in that you cherry pick someones comments and only respond to the out of context statement while ignoring the everything else.
Like I said, "Your confusion is in that the cons rejection of Dems ideas is not the same as no ideas."

Cons are funny. Funny cons. :2rofll:

Still can't post any Dem ideas I see. Well since they have announce they would several times and never have I can see your problem. And as long as Clinton is in the news, the titular head of the Dem party you'll just have to live with it. Get rid of him and you'll never have to defend him again.

 

[BWG]

Still can't post any Dem ideas I see.

Are you a child that has to be told over and over again? I've already said that I have nor had any intentions of posting anything. If you are content to garner your information from other Freepers, I don't care either.

And as long as Clinton is in the news, the titular head of the Dem party you'll just have to live with it. Get rid of him and you'll never have to defend him again.

It's you Republicans that are obsessed with him and keep dragging him out to try to deflect attention from Republican misdeeds and these days it's becoming like 'Wack a Mole'...LOL:lol: . Why can't Republicans stand on their own merits? Where's the personal responsibility?

Just as with the Clinton impeachment....

to have someone like Clinton....

You just can't help yourself....LOL

:2funny:

 

[Stinger]

Are you a child that has to be told over and over again? I've already said that I have nor had any intentions of posting anything. If you are content to garner your information from other Freepers, I don't care either.

Getting testy aren't we, I know it must be difficult to cite anything of substance the Dems are running on.

It's you Republicans that are obsessed with him and keep dragging him out

Oh that's hilarious, yes it's Republicans who fawn over the low-life and give him platforms and accolades. How absurd.

to try to deflect attention from Republican misdeeds and these days it's becoming like 'Wack a Mole'...LOL:lol: .

Yeah like Reid and Jefferson. When will you learn that neither side is less corrupt than the other and Dems can't run on that issue?

Why can't Republicans stand on their own merits?

When haven't they, why can't Dems put forth anything of substance without using the work Republican?

Where's the personal responsibility?

It's not personal.


So what exactly is it the Dems will do as far as Iraq that we aren't doing already?

 

[BWG]

Once again you dishonesty shines bright.



So I will leave you with the words of a self-proclaimed Christian Republican Governor who thought the mike was off and showed his true colors by saying....

Adios MoFo

:2rofll:

:2funny:

:2wave:

 

[Stinger]

Once again you dishonesty shines bright.

Once again your ad hominems do not substitute for something worth reading. Here's a hint, most of us have been doing this debating for quite awhile, we don't buy the nonsense you post such as the statement above.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Looks like team Macaca may be going down Tuesday.

Bye bye :2wave:

 

[Navy Pride]

Looks like team Macaca may be going down Tuesday.

Bye bye :2wave:

Only in your dreams my friend.........