PDA

View Full Version : Presidential Candidates in Debate



deepblue
10-01-2004, 12:17 PM
I listened to the first of the debates between Kerry and Bush yesterday. I thought both Kerry and Bush

presented fairly well.

I suppose it depends on who you are partial to already but after you watch or listen

to the debates post who you think is doing a better job making their arguments.

NPR is great:


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?sto

ryId=4055740 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4055740)

It is a side question but which of the candidates do you believe is using pheromones?

:wave::lovestruc

Holmes
10-01-2004, 12:27 PM
Bush, for one.

On that

note,

Interesting

piece (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041001/lf_afp/us_vote_kerry_bush_body_041001180150) on the body language we witnessed duing the debate.

SweetBrenda
10-01-2004, 03:04 PM
Phermones or not

I have a thing for Bush :lovestruc ... But I also had a thing for

Clinton :wub: too! I think I just like guys in suits.:thumbsup: Heh!

a.k.a.
10-01-2004, 03:12 PM
Phermones or not I have a thing for [color=magenta]Bush :lovestruc

...

Yup. I've got a thing for bush too... Ooops. I'm sorry. You meant George Bush.

Didn't you?

Pancho1188
10-01-2004, 03:14 PM
...or you just like powerful

men like every other woman in the world...

...after all, who better to support you for the rest of your life

than the man who could bring 10 men in suits to take down a person who just looked at you the wrong way? ;)

DrSmellThis
10-01-2004, 03:24 PM
Bush got crushed. He should

get some -mones from Bruce for the next debate.

belgareth
10-01-2004, 03:28 PM
Bush got

crushed.
I don't know that he got crushed but he did do pretty poorly. One comment I read implied that he

ran out of material and started repeating himself. That shows poor preperation. Pretty sad from somebody with the

resources he has to get prepared. Unfortunately, I was busy and didn'tsee it.

Holmes
10-01-2004, 03:35 PM
Bush got

crushed.

He came off badly. Very badly.

Holmes
10-01-2004, 03:40 PM
Phermones or not I have a thing for Bush :lovestruc

...

Idi Amin was pretty sexy, too.

SweetBrenda
10-01-2004, 03:44 PM
Yup. I've got

a thing for bush too... Ooops. I'm sorry. You meant George Bush. Didn't you?HAHAHAHAH okay

that was pretty good I can't deny that!..:thumbsup: It was an open Target! You Are

good...:rasp:

SweetBrenda
10-01-2004, 03:52 PM
I don't

know that he got crushed but he did do pretty poorly. One comment I read implied that he ran out of material and

started repeating himself. That shows poor preperation. Pretty sad from somebody with the resources he has to get

prepared. Unfortunately, I was busy and didn'tsee it.I missed it too Bel. I was having a good

time in the Sauna and I forgot all about it! I was upset for missing it because I actually wanted to watch

it. Oh Well!... I know who I'm going for so...

belgareth
10-01-2004, 03:57 PM
I missed it too Bel. I was having a good time in the Sauna and I forgot all

about it! I was upset for missing it because I actually wanted to watch it. Oh Well!... I know who I'm going for

so...
I was working; trying to catch up on things that aren't getting done in the office because

I am so busy in the field lately. Gods! I hate paperwork, especially government mandated paperwork that takes money

from me!

DrSmellThis
10-01-2004, 04:06 PM
This reader mailbag struck me

as representative of the reactions I've seen on it.



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6153466/site/newsweek/



Kerry was masterful and presidential by comparison. The debate ended mercifully for Bush, who was getting pummeled

by the end and lost the ability to defend himself. He kept endlessly repeating the same simplistic, semi-relevant

cliches; and was zoning out. He grimaced repeatedly in response to Kerry's on-target criticisms. His message came

across as hollow and impoverished. Carl Rove must have felt helpless. John McCain, prominent Republican and Bush

debate advisor, called the debate "John Kerry's brightest moment."

Pancho1188
10-01-2004, 04:10 PM
Well, repeating yourself is

better than coming up with new material on the spot:

"What's the deal with Iraq? First of all, I'm still

trying to figure out what it is. Is this an ear rock or an eye rack? Is this someone exclaiming, "I rock!"? If

so, how did they know so long ago that it would catch on to mean that a person was cool? I don't understand it,

but if you vote for me, I promise you that these questions and more will be answered!"



That all said, I

think it's funny how a person's competency is judged by his ability to perform in front of millions of people.

How many scam artists have you seen persuade people but have no real ability to do anything besides put on a good

front and sell you something? How many 'Beautiful Minds' have you seen that couldn't do jack in front of a

television but could easily solve the world's greatest problems?

I'm not saying we'd be better off with a

genius with no public speaking skills, I'm just saying that I'm smart and could do a decent job at many

things...but you put me in front of 287 million people and tell me to give my views on foreign policy, I'm going to

make a mistake every once in a while. Life isn't a movie where Bush can repeat the line over and over again until

it sounds like Mel Gibson in Braveheart...but I guess you expect perfection from the most powerful man in the

world.

a.k.a.
10-01-2004, 04:24 PM
I didn’t watch the debates because

it would have probably just pissed me off.
Hope I didn’t miss anything.
Did Kerry reveal his exit

strategy from Iraq?
Did Bush explain what he was going to do about the trade deficit?
Did either candidate

mention a plan for dealing with climate change or the new strain of avian flu virus?

Unfortunately I’m

old enough to remember when the League of Women Voters used to sponsor these things. Candidates had to face some

pretty tough questions and the audience wasn’t just another prop.
The current model is just a forum for Dems

and Republicans to trade off pre-rehearsed soundbites.

Anyway I’d be very surprised if Kerry didn’t score

better than Bush.

Holmes
10-01-2004, 04:40 PM
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6146353/

a.k.a.
10-01-2004, 04:49 PM
Thanks Holmes. Now I'm I'm good

and pissed.
<signing off to go meditate. "Aummmm....">

DrSmellThis
10-01-2004, 04:52 PM
I believe the links in the

middle of this page have the whole debate ready for viewing.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITIC

S/10/01/debate.worldreax.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.worldreax.ap/index.html)

I don't think reading it makes it come across as well.

SweetBrenda
10-01-2004, 04:59 PM
I believe the links in the middle of this page have the whole debate ready for

viewing.



http://www.cnn

.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.worldreax.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.worldreax.ap/index.html)



I don't think reading it makes it come across as

well.
hey! Doc thanks for the links!!!:thumbsup:

SweetBrenda
10-01-2004, 05:00 PM
I didn’t watch

the debates because it would have probably just pissed me off.
Hope I didn’t miss anything.
Did Kerry

reveal his exit strategy from Iraq?
Did Bush explain what he was going to do about the trade deficit?
Did

either candidate mention a plan for dealing with climate change or the new strain of avian flu virus?



Unfortunately I’m old enough to remember when the League of Women Voters used to sponsor these things. Candidates

had to face some pretty tough questions and the audience wasn’t just another prop.
The current model is just a

forum for Dems and Republicans to trade off pre-rehearsed soundbites.

Anyway I’d be very surprised if Kerry

didn’t score better than Bush.So are you voting?:hammer:
:run:

DrSmellThis
10-01-2004, 05:04 PM
I didn’t watch

the debates because it would have probably just pissed me off.
Hope I didn’t miss anything.
Did Kerry reveal his

exit strategy from Iraq?
Did Bush explain what he was going to do about the trade deficit?
Did either candidate

mention a plan for dealing with climate change or the new strain of avian flu virus?

Unfortunately I’m old

enough to remember when the League of Women Voters used to sponsor these things. Candidates had to face some pretty

tough questions and the audience wasn’t just another prop.
The current model is just a forum for Dems and

Republicans to trade off pre-rehearsed soundbites.

Anyway I’d be very surprised if Kerry didn’t score better

than Bush.* The debate was mostly about Iraq and the war on terror. domestic policy is next, I guess.

*

It sounded less rehearsed than I anticipated, thankfully. We need more debates, and longer ones, IMHO. People are

starving for substance.

* I thought Kerry gave an appropriately general exit strategy, allowing for variations

in progress in security; diplomatic initiatives; reinforcement and shifting of focus on the ground (e.g., away from

just protecting oil sites), and transition to international support. He made it clear America has no long term

designs on Iraq. His plan was way more detailed than Bush's, and he often confronted Bush about having no plan

there.

deepblue
10-01-2004, 06:12 PM
Just in case it wasn't noticed

the first time I put a link up to the NPR web site that has recordings of the whole speach plus commentary and parts

of the whole speach. NPR kicks ass.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?s

toryId=4055740 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4055740)

The details of the Kerry exit plan are up on his web site from what I listened to.

a.k.a.
10-01-2004, 06:56 PM
Thanks Holmes. Now

I'm I'm good and pissed.
<signing off to go meditate. "Aummmm....">

OK. I feel better

now.
Actualy Kerry did quite well on nuclear non-proliferation. Good job.
But I guess I was hoping for a

replay of a much more forceful response to an unjust and unnecessary war:
Reporter: "How would YOU suggest we

get US troops out of Vietnam?"
Young Idealistic John Kerry: "On ships."


And, yes, I do plan to vote.

DrSmellThis
10-02-2004, 02:55 AM
This amateur analysis from the

Newsweek "reader mailbag" recalled one particularly dominant moment:

"The pivotal exchange was triggered by

Bush saying we went to war to punish our attackers. Kerry nailed him on the fact that Osama bin Laden attacked us

... Bush compounded his mistake with a retort that was straight from Will Ferrell of 'Saturday Night Live': 'I

know it was Osama bin Laden!'" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Priceless.

deepblue
10-02-2004, 04:26 AM
I think the debate went well

for Kerry. He came off Presidential and more than that, he is simply right. If he can do that or better for two more

rounds I thinik he is headed for the whitehouse. :thumbsup: :cheers:
One area I thought could have been nailed down

a little more was the human cost of Iraq. Kerry offered a figure on the death toll, but nothing on the number with

permanent injuries. I'm just knit picking though.

a.k.a.
10-02-2004, 07:55 AM
One area I thought

could have been nailed down a little more was the human cost of Iraq. Kerry offered a figure on the death toll, but

nothing on the number with permanent injuries. I'm just knit picking though.

There are so many

ways Kerry could have been stronger on Iraq, but his position is too close to Bush’s for him to offer anything more

than nuance.
“I am going to lead those troops to victory.” Is not an exit strategy.
He blames

Bush for misleading the American people, which is true. But then he also says his message to the troops is “Help is

on the way.” As an example of this so-called help he offers us the dream of a summit which is supposed to bring more

of our “allies” into the conflict.

Once upon a time John Kerry used to be clear headed and to the

point. But when you spend the better part of your career compromising your principles, your mind starts getting

muddled up with rationalizations. The more intelligent you are, the more convincing your rationalizations sound. But

Kerry’s position on Iraq is still a muddle and the Bush camp is going to get as much milage off of this weakness as

they can.

einstein
10-02-2004, 11:08 AM
I like the body language

article. PBS talked to some bodylanguage people after the debate, and they didn't touch on any of the points of

that article. They were criticizing Bush for leaning on the podium and praising him for addressing the camera. And

praising Kerry for looking confident and presidential but criticizing him for talking to Lehrer instead of to the

American people.

And I saw on some useless celebrity news show abotu the Wives being dressed almost identically

in Oscar de larenta. You can even see heinz-kerry point to thier outfits when they greet each other at the end of

the debate. That was pretty funny.

I personally think 90 minutes is too long for foreign policy. Maybe if it

was all of foreign policy, but this was almost entirely Iraq. And there isn't 90 minutes of substantive Iraq.


BTW, Kerry wouldn't go into Iraq without the UN but wants bilateral talks with N. Korea???

DrSmellThis
10-02-2004, 12:04 PM
I wondered about that at first

too, but the bilateral talks thing was misportrayed by Bush as Kerry chasing away China's and other neighboring

countries' pressure on N. Korea. I wish Kerry would have explained it better. If I understood it correctly, he's

not subtracting anything -- he's adding talks with N. Korea. Every country should be talking with Korea.

There should be a multilateral non-proliferation summit over there too. But Bush is an advocate of "my way or the

highway" approaches to "diplomacy" as opposed to talks, even if they involve more than one country. But that is

not the way people and relationships work. Intensive diplomacy involving actual discussion is what most often

produces results, not just threats and punitive pressure. Bush tends to make last resorts be first. You very quickly

run out of trump cards when you play your hand that way. We don't have enough military resources to take over too

many (if any) more countries.

I do understand some people losing interest if they don't like politics, but

ninety minutes was not enough to scratch the surface in Iraq or any other kind of foreign policy. Americans too

often base their knowledge on sound bites, innuendo and rumor. Debates don't solve that problem, (and they can even

perpetuate it, depending on the debate) but at least they're potentially more substantive than most media

presentations of the issues; and get people thinking.

DrSmellThis
10-02-2004, 07:12 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/bush.

ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/bush.ap/index.html)

Does this type of political rhetoric strike anyone else as prepubescent garbage, on so many

levels? Could anyone really be gullible enough to swallow this verbal Ipecac?

Elk Dreamer
10-02-2004, 07:18 PM
Kerry was the

better student at Yale. He is a seasoned warrior, leader, a articulate Senator with a solid experience base in world

affairs. He appears more presidential because he is more presidential. George W. Bush is a pampered C student who

really hasn't matured beyond the big man on campus syndrome. If he gets beyond a sound bite in thought or word he

fades into simple non verbal facial gestures, tics ,and contemptuous sneers that remind me of the Alfred E. Newman

character in MAD Magazine. If he was working for a living he would have been fired long ago. I doubt it if he could

make it to the first level of application for Trump's Apprentice Program.
Turn the sound off on your TV and

watch the non-verbal language it is very revealing.

Elk

Holmes
10-03-2004, 08:04 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLP

OLITICS/10/02/bush.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/bush.ap/index.html)

Does this type of political rhetoric strike anyone else as

prepubescent garbage, on so many levels? Could anyone really be gullible enough to buy this verbal

Ipecac?

:lol:

Yes and (shockingly) yes.

DrSmellThis
10-03-2004, 04:10 PM
:lol:

Yes

and (shockingly) yes.Well then people ought to take a teaspoon or two of Condi's latest doublespeak:



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10

/03/rice.bush.kerry/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/rice.bush.kerry/index.html)

Holmes
10-04-2004, 07:10 PM
"The proceeding statement is true.

The preceding statement was false." Damn, she's good.

Eagerly awaiting Edwards Vs. Satan...

DrSmellThis
10-04-2004, 11:59 PM
Has anyone else noticed that

Dick Cheney's face makes an absolutely great cartoon character? :)

DrSmellThis
10-05-2004, 12:09 AM
Damn, she's

good.I'm not sure whether I love best Condi saying that even though A.Q. Khan lives in a villa, immune from

prosecution, he has been "brought to justice"; or, that the aluminum tubes could only have been for nuclear

missles, even though she is admitting there was always debate about them, which she knew she wasn't fully up to

speed with... Or maybe it's, "I don't understand 'proving to the world that you (took unilateral, preemptive

military action) for legitimate reasons,'" :eek: Yeah baby! Why should we have to show to anyone that our

military actions are legitimate, even in hindsight? We are the U.S. of mutha fucking A! :twisted: You gotta

love the carefree dom/sub message this is sending to our bitches; I mean ahem, the rest of the world. I feel

totally comfortable with her representing my country in this way, don't you?! How could presenting ourselves

bluntly as a dangerous, loose cannon answerable to nobody possibly compromise our long term security and

standing in the world?? :think: What a diplomat! I feel totally safe with her and W steering the boat! Four

more years! So much for that. Time for a snooze.

a.k.a.
10-08-2004, 07:03 AM
I read an opinion piece ("The

Nation"?) that suggested Bush was trying to tell the American people that the job's too hard for him and he needs

our help (voting him out of office) in order to enjoy a long vacaction.
Here's the theme

song:

http://citypages.com/blogmedia/amadzine/hardwork.mp3

DrSmellThis
10-08-2004, 07:25 AM
Well it is hard work.

koolking1
10-08-2004, 10:18 AM
and lets not forget Cheney

telling everyone to go to FactCheck.com which is saying to vote Bush out.

DrSmellThis
10-08-2004, 12:28 PM
So is W way favored tonight or

what? I unfortunately have a gig so I'll be missing it. I'm counting on you guys (and/or ladies) to school me.

DrSmellThis
10-09-2004, 11:46 AM
Jeez, did nobody see the

debate? It was on the TV during my gig, but I couldn't hear it. News reports are saying tie. Interestingly, flash

polls from CNN news and MSN suggested a large Kerry victory, though you have to take those with a grain of salt

(maybe people who read the news like Kerry ;)). CNN makes it so you have to put adware or whatever on your computer

to watch their videos.

Elk Dreamer
10-09-2004, 11:58 AM
Debate Friday Night October

9, 2004

Kerry B-

Bush D-

ELK

koolking1
10-09-2004, 02:38 PM
I watched it but had a "j"

beforehand and have nothing much to say. I couldn't tell who had won but most of the polls seem to favor Kerry

from slightly to overwhemingly.

einstein
10-10-2004, 04:32 AM
I had to work. I saw the

beginning, Bush was kicking ass when they were going over Iraq.
"He'll have a summit and what's he gonna say to

these leaders. 'Join us in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?'"

Saw a little bit when they

were finally discussing things like health care and economy. Looked pretty balanced then, they were both doing

good.

I think there was a genius in the crowd. The guy who said "Mr. Kerry, would be able to look in the camera

right now, and pledge that you will not raise taxes on families that earn less than $100,000."
It's like that

guy was making a contingency plan if Bush loses, so that the republicans already have a 2008 commercial if Kerry

wins.

metroman
10-10-2004, 09:45 AM
I think I caused some posts to

be deleted recently, sorry for that. My post was only trying to be sarcastically funny in response to what was

obvious humor on some other posters part.

DrSmellThis
10-10-2004, 10:20 AM
Good to hear from a

Republican. I'm glad that's all the "ass kicking" was. Bush's approach of sticking to his "guns" (on the Iraq

invasion/WMD, Iraq/Al-Queda) despite his poor aim is obviously not working, since something like 15 countries have

left his "coalition of the willing," and most of the rest are tiny countries responding to strong handed pressure to

declare allegiance. He is so desperate for allies he wants to count Iraq itself in the coalition of countries that

invaded/is helping to rebuild Iraq. Almost no one around the world believes Bush, or thinks the war was right. On

the contrary, world leaders mostly all agree with Kerry; take for granted the war was wrong; will find him to be a

breath of fresh air; and are way more likely to cooperate with Kerry acknowledging the truth with a pragmatic task

focus on honorable goals; than with someone still doggedly lying to their faces about the war and their foreign

policy in general. Bush imagines that the secret to it is sticking to repetitive, disinformative propaganda; and

believes people are gullible enough to fall for it. That is not the America I want to be associated with.

I do

agree the question from the audience was clever. It's smart for Republicans to keep the focus on tax cuts, since

tax cuts for the rich are the only thing Bush has done "for" (to) the economy in four years (The completely

insignificant tax cut I got, for example, was at best grain of sand on a beach of economic disasters -- like

somebody buying beers and dinner.). Otherwise it's been complete devastation on his watch.

a.k.a.
10-10-2004, 10:45 AM
I didn’t watch but I read the

transcripts.
Bush seems a bit more informed this time around. Kerry’s “I’ve got a plan” is getting old.

(I checked his website and, if he does have a plan, he’s keeping it to himself. All I see is a handful of objectives

and a whole lot of Bush critique.)

With regards to Iraq, the idea of Europe helping us out because

Kerry holds a summit is wishful thinking. The occupation’s already a failed enterprise and the future of Iraq will

be decided by whichever insurgent forces come out on top. The only question is how much damage will Bush or Kerry

leave behind. All the tough talk from the Bush camp leaves me thinking that he won’t leave until the entire region

is destabilized beyond repair. The fact that Kerry at least wants to talk gives me some hope that Iran and Syria

won’t be drawn into the quagmire.

With regards to National Security... Lots of wishful thinking from

both candidates. The terrorists are going to attack when they’re going to attack, and if they don’t already have a

dirty bomb maybe God really is on our side after all. It took the US 50 years of failed Middle East policies to get

us to this point, and it’s going to take just about as long before we can see real security. Neither candidate is on

the right track.

On the economy... Both candidates correctly identify small business as the major

source of new jobs. Kerry is offering tax breaks that (if they pass) will ease some of the burden on small employers

but won’t really put a dent on job losses. The basis of job flight is capital flight, and neither candidate is going

to stand in the way of that.
Kerry says he’s going to cut the deficit and I believe he’s going to try his

hardest, because there’s lots of pressure from international financial institutions. (And Kerry is to Big Finance

what Bush is to Big Oil.) Bush says there’s no way without raising taxes, but there is a way: cut social spending.

I’ll bet this is the way Kerry’s going to go.

On the environment... Kerry says Bush has one of the worst

records in modern times. Which is almost an understatement. Bush has staffed the agencies supposed to protect our

environment with corporate reps bent on plundering it.
Unfortunately Kerry simply doesn’t have much of an

environmental record. (He seems to mostly just stay out of the conflict.) He’s gotten the Sierra Club’s endorsement,

but they’re just a bunch of toothless bureaucrats and knee-jerk Democrats IMO.
I’m suspicious of his talk

to make us energy independent. Does that mean he’s going to drill more wells in Alaska? Is he going to go through

with the Bush plan to open up more than 80,000 coal methane wells in the Powder river Basin of Montana and

Wyoming?
Kerry’s been very silent on some of the most catastrophic initiatives around. Plus his chief Energy

consultant, Ralph Cavanagh, is the guy that sold Enron’s takeover of Portland General Electric to Oregon greens.

(“Can you trust Enron?” Cavanagh said. “On stewardship issues and public benefit issues I’ve dealt with this company

for a decade, often in the most contentious circumstances, and the answer is, yes.”)

I’m glad to

see Kerry brought up the issue of nuclear nonproliferation once again. This is the one issue IMO where Kerry’s

rhetoric matches his record and there’s a clear difference between him and Bush. On the one hand you have a

reasonable (albeit opportunistic) man who joins most of the world’s leaders in a reasonable plan for a much safer

future. On the other hand you have a man that hears voices from God and doesn’t care what the rest of the world has

to say.
So for me this election boils down to, “Whose finger would I rather have on the Rapture button?”

Pancho1188
10-10-2004, 10:56 AM
I’m glad

to see Kerry brought up the issue of nuclear nonproliferation once again. This is the one issue IMO where Kerry’s

rhetoric matches his record and there’s a clear difference between him and Bush. On the one hand you have a

reasonable (albeit opportunistic) man who joins most of the world’s leaders in a reasonable plan for a much safer

future. On the other hand you have a man that hears voices from God and doesn’t care what the rest of the world has

to say.

I think that Kerry should bring up nuclear policies whenever possible. After all, how smart do

you look when your opponent can't even pronounce it correctly (Homer Simpson: "Nucular. It's pronounced

'nucular'."). :thumbsup:

belgareth
10-10-2004, 11:17 AM
AKA, your always a breath of

fresh air in these discussions. Thanks for your even handed and well thought out comments. :)

Saturday morning

my 17 year old daughter was visiting me. While we were chatting she brought up her concern that if Bush is

re-elected there would be a draft. She and many of her friends are (rightfully) concerned. Her and I spent a little

time researching it as an exercise in critical thinking. Her conclusions were that:
A: No matter who becomes

president, if we stay in Iraq, the draft must be started.
B: Neither candidate has offered any realistic path out

of the quagmire in Iraq.
C: Talk of a draft came originally from the Kerry camp but is reputed to be a republican

goal:
D: To enforce the belief that there would be a draft, the democrats initiated legislation to authorize one.



The conversation ended with her complaining about dirty politics and asking why people would trust or vote for

either party when both were such obvious liars. I tried to explain that many people felt they had to vote for the

lessor of two evils because they wanted to vote for somebody they felt might win. My explanation was probably pretty

weak because I don't believe that way and may account for her opinion that it was an idiotic way to do things.

DrSmellThis
10-10-2004, 11:34 AM
Idiotic? It's good to see

that after your exercise in "independent", critical thinking your daughter came out believing everything you

believe! :POKE: I knew you'd like AKA's post, as it did sound quite Bel-ian! Choices in life are often about the

lesser of two "evils" (though there are certainly positives to making good choices, and though it is simplistic to

just label them both "evil" and stop there.). Refusing to choose either won't ever change that historic fact about

the world, and therefore it's illogical to believe that choosing a lesser evil necessarily perpetuates the problem

as you assert. Bel, you are essentially a conservative without a party. It sucks to be you right now, but that's

why you hate Kerry, and say you'll never vote for a Democrat. You indicate you are a died-in-the-wool

anti-Democrat. So in your case I agree you shouldn't vote. Otherwise I'd be afraid you'd go for Bush. For

everyone else, please get out and vote!

Pancho1188
10-10-2004, 11:46 AM
AKA, your

always a breath of fresh air in these discussions. Thanks for your even handed and well thought out comments. :)



Saturday morning my 17 year old daughter was visiting me. While we were chatting she brought up her concern that

if Bush is re-elected there would be a draft. She and many of her friends are (rightfully) concerned. Her and I

spent a little time researching it as an exercise in critical thinking. Her conclusions were that:
A: No matter who

becomes president, if we stay in Iraq, the draft must be started.
B: Neither candidate has offered any realistic

path out of the quagmire in Iraq.
C: Talk of a draft came originally from the Kerry camp but is reputed to be a

republican goal:
D: To enforce the belief that there would be a draft, the democrats initiated legislation to

authorize one.

The conversation ended with her complaining about dirty politics and asking why people would

trust or vote for either party when both were such obvious liars. I tried to explain that many people felt they had

to vote for the lessor of two evils because they wanted to vote for somebody they felt might win. My explanation was

probably pretty weak because I don't believe that way and may account for her opinion that it was an idiotic way to

do things.I stand by the belief that politicians must lie or they will lose.

I cite the most recent

admission by Bush that we may never win the war on terrorism (as obvious as it is to me, freedom brings potential to

harm...we have the right to bear arms, therefore we have the opportunity to use them on others in a harmful

manner...you can't prevent every derranged individual from doing something really bad). This was an honest

statement. This is true. You can't completely stop people who randomly decide to strap a bomb to their chest and

blow themselves up taking whoever with them. You can't prevent that 100% of the time. You do the best you can...but

what did Kerry say right after that? Something along the lines of, "Oh, we can win the war on terror! Vote for me

and we will defeat our enemies!" Then what happened? Bush retracted his previous statement. Something along the

lines of, "I retract my statement. We can win. We're going to win." What the hell? What happened? Honesty =

Losing.

Voters don't want to hear the truth, they want to hear good things. The minute Bush admits his fault is

the minute he loses. I hate to say that, but it's true. People vote based on how he presents himself. No matter how

you look at it, you have to admit that the man has never backed down on anything. That's why Republicans push the

"wishy-washy" stigma on Kerry. That's what Bush has going for him. He gives that up, and it's all over.

On a

brighter note, maybe Bush'll be honest in his next term since he won't have anything to lose...nah...




Regarding Iraq...

We're screwed. We really are. No matter what happens, we're getting the blame for this

one. A crappy government in place? It's the US's fault! Evil military force overthrows government? It's the US's

fault!

On that note, we're never moving out. Maybe we should just declare Iraq the 51st state... *sigh* At

least that would justify a draft...to protect our new territory! *rolls eyes*

belgareth
10-10-2004, 11:48 AM
You both misunderstand and

under-estimate me Doc. Hate of somebody for something as petty as political beliefs is not something I can do. Nor

is it uncomfortable to be me, I rather like it. You can bring hatred into this if you like but don't assign your

limitations to me.

You make me laugh frequently with your desire to pigeon hole people. Other's consider me a

democrat without a party, I see it as both sides injecting their own bias in a futile effort to classify something

they don't understand. AKA's post was wonderfully even handed and well thought out, even you should be able to

admit that.

What I did for my daughter was take her to Kerry's and Bush's web sites. Then I had her read the

Congresional Record. Once she had spent the time to do that, I asked for her conclusions. The answers were her's,

not mine. The only bias I let into the conversation was what I mentioned. You should really learn not to jump to

conclusions and be insulting when you don't know WTF you are talking about!

As for your comment about me not

voting, that was beneath you, or at least I hope it was.

DrSmellThis
10-10-2004, 12:06 PM
You both

misunderstand and under-estimate me Doc. Hate of somebody for something as petty as political beliefs is not

something I can do. Nor is it uncomfortable to be me, I rather like it. You can bring hatred into this if you like

but don't assign your limitations to me.

You make me laugh frequently with your desire to pigeon hole people.

Other's consider me a democrat without a party, I see it as both sides injecting their own bias in a futile effort

to classify something they don't understand. AKA's post was wonderfully even handed and well thought out, even you

should be able to admit that.

What I did for my daughter was take her to Kerry's and Bush's web sites. Then I

had her read the Congresional Record. Once she had spent the time to do that, I asked for her conclusions. The

answers were her's, not mine. The only bias I let into the conversation was what I mentioned. You should really

learn not to jump to conclusions and be insulting when you don't know WTF you are talking about!I meant

"hate" in a colloquial way, not literally; so I'm sorry for the ambiguity of word choice. As for insulting, I've

heard a lot of unfair "stuff" from you without calling you "idiotic", cursing, or even replying to it for that

matter. You've at least lost your sense of humor today. Regarding pigeon-holing, you apparently did that to

yourself with your own words (as well as your mostly conservative track record here, though you worry about the

environment and know the war was wrong). I was trying to reflect back what I've seen over time, at least in your

role here. I don't care about classifying you, though. If you summarize yourself, and it seems consistent with what

you have said here, I'll be happy to think of it in those terms instead from now on. I of course don't know what

goes on inside your head, or your home. That does sound like a fair exercise, although if I met randomly any young

woman who talked that way, I'd first think it was your daughter :).

belgareth
10-10-2004, 01:03 PM
I meant

"hate" in a colloquial way, not literally; so I'm sorry for the ambiguity of word choice. As for insulting, I've

received a lot of "stuff" from you without calling you idiotic, cursing, or even replying to it for that matter.

You've at least lost your sense of humor today. Regarding pigeon-holing, you apparently did that to yourself with

your own words (as well as your mostly conservative track record here, though you worry about the environment and

know the war was wrong). I was trying to reflect back what I've seen over time, at least in your role here. I

don't care about classifying you, though. If you summarize yourself, and it seems consistent with what you have

said here, I'll be happy to think of it in those terms instead from now on. I of course don't know what goes on

inside your head, or your home. That does sound like a fair exercise, although if I met randomly any young woman who

talked that way, I'd first think it was your daughter :).I don't characterize myself or others because it

is never accurate, is often offensive and is IMO lazy thinking. Each of us is an individual and deserves respect of

their individualism. Your statement above demonstrates that you really can't put a label on me and my beliefs.

Being negative about the democratic party does not make me conservative. It is a reflection of what I have learned

observing the democratic party in action. Over all, democratic policies are a greater burden on society than other

beliefs.

Just so You'll understand, over the years I have dealt with politices the same as religion while

teaching my children. We have attended a number of different churches, each for several months and not just

christian. I don't give them opinions only information. They have to make up their own minds. The same methods are

used in politics, they have as little information as possible about my opinions so they have the opportunity to form

their own. In other words, I try to teach, not convert or convince.

It may be my fault that you caught the edge

of my temper today, being a bit hung over. Though I would expect somebody of your caliber and training who knows how

I feel about and deal with my kids to have better sense than go there. I would like to know where I said you were

idiotic. I was quoting a general statement my daughter made and you chose to take it personally and as if I said it.

That's your problem, not mine.

Without trying to insult you, you are very biased in your opinions and would do

well to learn to be more open minded. We all suffer from that and I am no exception. But the importance of clear

thinking in this political environment is far greater than most.

The last comment here is regarding your

suggestion that I shouldn't vote because I might vote for Bush. As a Democrat that comes across as pure hypocrisy.

I disagree with you therefore I am wrong and should not be allowed to vote? Maybe you didn't mean it that way but

that's how I read it. Thoughts and statements like that are exactly what you rail against in the republicans. Do

you expect me to take your belief in democracy seriously when you make statements of that nature?

DrSmellThis
10-10-2004, 01:36 PM
I was just ribbing you about

your kid, but will try not to "kid" you on the weekends early in the day from now on. Sorry about that. I know you

encourage responsibility and independence in them. And I was of course not unilaterally suggesting you not vote, but

was reflecting back your own statements about voting for nobody. Lastly, I am open minded, but am task focused on

getting Bush out of office right now for a much better alternative. Regardless of your beliefs, you have

tended to fight tooth and nail against this project right before an election (though you often call a spade a

spade on anti-government issues in general) and have therefore gotten appropriate responses. It is not suprising you

don't see open-mindedness right now, since no information has come out that should change the task (e.g., AKA's

observations). At this moment I'm emphasizing some aspects of my beliefs for the battle and am deemphasizing other

aspects. Yesterday you lauded my long-stated goals of achieving democracy, and today you suddenly don't take those

goals seriously? Whatever. :)

belgareth
10-10-2004, 02:19 PM
Hangovers are pretty rare for

me, about once every 20 years. Last night my girlfriend threw a birthday party for me that was a little out of the

ordinary and I suffered for it this morning.

My comment was that I was not going to vote for either of the major

candidates. I never said or meant to imply that I would not vote. I have not missed an election since I was about

21.

This is where our opinions differ. I see no logic in supporting somebody that has greater than an even

chance of being just more of the same old thing. Historically democrats have been just as crooked and just as bad on

the environment and just as great of war-mongers as the republicans. You disliked Bush before he ever took office

and your opinion hasn't changed. I'll give you points for being consistant :) There is nothing you have said that

outweighs historical precedence or Kerry's record or his participation in groups like CFR. Do like I do, instead of

listening to the news, mainstream or alternative, look at his voting record, read the congressional record and

compare it to what he says. He is still a typical politician and does not deserve my vote.

I've pointed out

several times that much of this country disagrees with you. You even tried to write it off as they were lacking in

knowledge which is, in my opinion, both unfair and glossing over of reality. Personally, I believe that Kerry is

going to win. And personally I believe that in four years we are going to be back to the same old worthless choices

and the same old debate abolut which party is the lesser of two evils. Your "logic" is getting us nowhere!

The

only bright spot is the record number of people registering to vote. I hope many are the disenchanted who are

disgusted with the whole stinking system.

a.k.a.
10-10-2004, 03:33 PM
I for one would not be able to look

a 17 year old in the eye and say, “Don’t worry, kid. Kerry will veto any draft legislation that crosses his desk.”

a.k.a.
10-10-2004, 03:49 PM
Meanwhile, on a lighter

note:

"Debate incident leads to injury


The Herald-Sun
Oct 1, 2004 : 5:57 pm ET

CARRBORO

-- After watching the presidential debate Thursday night, two UNC students ended up slapping each other while

fighting over who Jesus would vote for in the election.

According to a police report, the concept of "turning

the other cheek" came up, and James Robert Austin, 19, of 1305 Granville Towers West in Chapel Hill, slapped Robert

Brooks Rollins, 22, of 104 Brewer Lane in Carrboro, on the cheek at Rollins' house.

After that, Rollins

slapped Austin, and Austin landed on the concrete patio, possibly striking his head, according to the report.

Rollins called for an ambulance, which took Austin to UNC Hospitals to be examined.

"

http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-528375.html

Pancho1188
10-10-2004, 03:50 PM
The question is...

Why do

we need a draft???

Show me where having 1,000,000 untrained individuals at your disposal is going to solve

anything in the current situation!

belgareth
10-10-2004, 04:04 PM
I for one would

not be able to look a 17 year old in the eye and say, “Don’t worry, kid. Kerry will veto any draft legislation that

crosses his desk.”
Nor would I. She didn't think so either. Perceptive kid!

belgareth
10-10-2004, 04:05 PM
The question

is...

Why do we need a draft???

Show me where having 1,000,000 untrained individuals at your disposal is

going to solve anything in the current situation!
Cannon fodder.

metroman
10-10-2004, 04:16 PM
There was an

article in this mornings online Times pointing out the similarities in both candidates...least of which is

membership in the Skull & Bones secret society...Ralph Nader also recently made public note of this fact. What are

the odds of 2 candidates running for Presidency to both have affiliation with the same secret society?

The

intellectual Noam Chomsky has pointed out in many of his critiques that we really are living in an essentially one

party state. The material difference between the two candidates is essentially zero.

The recent elections in

Afghanistan were obviously rigged as were the elections in this country in 2000 & if they ever have elections in

Iraq I'm sure the outcome will also be foreordained.

The Brotherhood elite are orchestrating events from

behind the scenes to implement their agenda.

My feeling is dont get out & vote!!!...dont participate in

this charade that is founded on deceit & lies. If enough people opt out & realize they dont have to participate in

this evil game maybe we can start taking our country & our world back.

belgareth
10-10-2004, 04:35 PM
While I agree with everything

you've said about the system, I disagree with how to take our country back. The whole point is and has been to

disenfranchise the majority of people. Get us out of the system so we stop even pretending to participate. To refuse

to participate will only give them a free hand. Once we have gone that far, none of the alternatives are good.

Elk Dreamer
10-10-2004, 06:55 PM
This Skull and Bone secret

organization is no small matter. I think that the candidates for office should come clean and disclose their

membership requirements past and present.

Bush and Kerry should answer how this secret membership influences

their individual decision making. We already know they have made vows of secrecy because they both have told newsmen

their membership and partisipation in this organization is a secret.

Membership in this Skull and Bones

secret organization indicates allegiances to other than the first office of the land,the Constitution and citizens

of the United States.
In addition it is based on a secret cult that was directly associated with the Third

Reich.

The fact that members of this society, including Bush's Grandfather have illegally dug bones of

American Indians from burial grounds in the night and removed them to their building on the Yale campus indicates

there is something very sinister or ridiculous going on in this organization.

ELK

Pancho1188
10-11-2004, 05:35 AM
My feeling

is dont get out & vote!!!...dont participate in this charade that is founded on deceit & lies. If enough people opt

out & realize they dont have to participate in this evil game maybe we can start taking our country & our world

back.
If you don't vote, then the people 'participating in this evil game' will be the only ones

voting...and thus the 'evil game' will continue...I don't see how not voting is going to help...you'd think the

real solution would be to vote someone who isn't Republican or Democrat. If you could get just 34% of the

population to vote for one person whose name isn't Bush or Kerry (assuming that the votes between them are tied

like the 'dead heat' the media makes it look like, they would each have 33% in that hypothetical situation), that

person would win...well, assuming they got the electoral votes...I didn't forget that Al Gore lost when he had the

most votes...but you get what I'm trying to say. If everyone voted for someone else, that person would win.



That's not going to happen, of course, but it would certainly be the conspiracy theory solution to getting rid of

the evil hierarchy.

The beauty of the two-party system is that people are conditioned into thinking if they vote

for anyone else, their votes "don't count," meaning that one of the other two parties is going to win so they

should at least make it count by voting for one of them. It doesn't have to be like that, but alas...that's the

mental hold the two-party system has.

Countries like Israel (worst example ever), South Africa, and Northern

Ireland (I think) have proportional representation, so any party that received at least ~5% (varies) of the vote

gets representation in the government. That would destroy the two-party system, but it also makes it harder for

laws to be passed because no one agrees. That said, the majority party always finds a way to get the smaller

parties on their side. The "coalition", as it's called. The danger, however, is getting radical parties in the

government. Could you imagine the Green party, the Communist party, and a racist faction all getting seats in the

House?

This is all hypothetical and by no means going to happen, but I thought I'd provide other scenarios for

those of you who are sick of the current system.

Not voting isn't going to do anything. Voting may do

'nothing', but not voting would be even worse.

metroman
10-11-2004, 04:14 PM
I know it sounds

counter-intuitive not to vote, but understand that by voting you're playing right into their hands. The last thing

the vote is, is an exercise in democracy. The only candidate I see who isn't a puppet on a string is Nader. But

Nader isn't going nowhere because he's not beholden to the brotherhood. Lets say hypothetically that 80% of the

population didn't participate in the vote...okay at that point even the brotherhood controlled mainstream media

would have to concede that so called representative democracy in this country has failed & has ceased to function.

Thats how we can take back our power by not playing their evil game.

The other countries that you mention

that allow some representation even amongst fringe parties are still controlled by the elite, because in order to

have any say those minority parties have to kow tow to the agenda of the illuminati.

If anyone doubts that

there is an illuminati conspiracy take a look at this country. The neocons draft a paper called PNAC (Project for

a New American Century), & state in that paper that in order for them to institute their agenda they'd need a new

Pearl Harbor...& voila! We get 9/11 that serves just that purpose...divine conicidence? I dont think so. The

official story as propounded by government & so called mainstream media is an absolute fairy tale.

belgareth
10-11-2004, 04:52 PM
You manage to tell us that the

media will pick up the fact that nobody is voting and publicise it. Then you turn around and say we cannot trust

them.

The reason the government gets away with this stuff is because the people are so apathetic about

government and participation in the process.If the majority became involved the powers that be would have to take

notice. Not voting is giving those powers free rein, that's why the system works so hard to desinfranchise and

otherwise reduce public participation

Pancho1188
10-11-2004, 05:35 PM
I know it

sounds counter-intuitive not to vote, but understand that by voting you're playing right into their hands. The last

thing the vote is, is an exercise in democracy. The only candidate I see who isn't a puppet on a string is Nader.

But Nader isn't going nowhere because he's not beholden to the brotherhood. Lets say hypothetically that 80% of

the population didn't participate in the vote...okay at that point even the brotherhood controlled mainstream media

would have to concede that so called representative democracy in this country has failed & has ceased to function.

Thats how we can take back our power by not playing their evil game.
Not voting would be giving up

our power. Face it, it's the only power we have. The 'evil game' isn't that they control everything, it's

that they delude people into believing that there are only two choices. I repeat myself by saying that it isn't

not voting that would change things but voting for someone else. You don't like who's in there, start a

revolution to get everyone in the United States to vote for one man that isn't a Republican or Democrat. That

would shake the nation.

I will cite American history when I say that parties have changed frequently. People

have short-term memories when they think that Democrats and Republicans are the only two parties. There were a

bunch of parties that have come and gone (Federalists, Anti-Federalists, two different factions of Republicans at

one point, Wig (sp?) party, etc.). Sure, it'll always be a two-party system, but keep them guessing! Vote someone

else in! The thing that keeps this from happening is the fear that if some people vote third-party instead of

Kerry, Bush will win...I'd say, "If Republicans voted..." but stereotypical Republicans vote straight Republican.

Still, if they didn't like it, they could all vote for someone else. People just want their vote to 'count', so

they vote one or the other.

I'm not trying to crush someone's wish for change, but the reason that things are

the way they are is because people don't vote. Everyone not voting wouldn't beat them at their game, it

would a. keep them in power and b. show how lazy and indifferent Americans are, thus proving their ability to stay

in power. Previous election turnouts have been around 48%. I don't see the fact that over half the population in

the United States changing anyone's views on our representative democracy. 48% vs. 25%...great, let's give the

25%, mostly the ones who 'control' things since those who weren't voting are either rebellious or don't care,

all of the power. If you think about it, if no one voted...wouldn't that be the same as a totalitarian

government/regime/dictatorship/(pick the word that would best suit it)? I mean, no one except the people in power

would vote...so the people in power would remain in power because they say so.

Okay, I'll play devil's

advocate for a moment and say that you're right. Nobody votes, and we've proven that our democracy doesn't work.

Whose fault would that be?!?!? I believe it's our responsibility to vote, not the

government's. Who failed in their duty? Bush may have made mistakes, but the government as a whole has

kept this nation the strongest world power for decades upon decades...they've held up their end of the bargain for

the most part despite many errors by a select few. Whose fault is it if nobody chooses our leaders next month?





The other countries that you mention that allow some representation even amongst fringe parties

are still controlled by the elite, because in order to have any say those minority parties have to kow tow to the

agenda of the illuminati.
True, but the difference is that those minority groups have power because the

majority has to 'buy' them by giving them what they want in exchange for their votes (e.g. "I'll vote 'yes' on

your bill if you vote 'yes' on mine). It still gives the largest groups the most power, but theoretically they

represent the majority of the nation's population.

metroman
10-11-2004, 05:46 PM
Well even the mainstream

controlled media cant ignore something so overwhelmingly obviously huge as 80% of the population not turning out to

vote. They have to maintain the veneer of plausibility. I respect your opinions & I know not voting in protest

doesn't seem like it would solve any problems. But if the puppet on a string, illuminati controlled US Supreme

Court is going to overrule whatever decision the electorate comes to I really dont see any point in voting. Just my

opinion...

Pancho1188
10-11-2004, 06:02 PM
Out of curiosity...what do you

conjecture would happen if nobody voted? My argument would be that the people can only blame themselves...how do

you see it? What would happen? What do you mean by "can't ignore"? This is what I would like to know. Again, I

would argue that this wouldn't solve anything. I don't see how it benefits us as the people in power would remain

in power. If it's so rigged, what do they care who voted for them or how they got into power as long as they are

there?


Maybe you see something I don't. If so, please explain. I would really like to hear a hypothetical

result of your scenario. I would like to know what you see happening as a result of nobody voting.

koolking1
10-11-2004, 07:29 PM
even if only 10% of the

population voted the winners would feel they had a clear mandate to govern. Anything less they may feel the same

too. I don't find Bush and Kerry all that alike but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with both of them and,

since I do, but also knowing that they are the only viable candidates, I could be bought for a six-pack!!!

a.k.a.
10-26-2004, 06:55 PM
I’m glad to

see Kerry brought up the issue of nuclear nonproliferation once again. This is the one issue IMO where Kerry’s

rhetoric matches his record and there’s a clear difference between him and Bush.


"One of the

great achievements of the Cold War was the creation of an antiproliferation international order, embodied in the

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, first agreed to in 1968, and renewed in 1995. It is a triumph of diplomacy and

political hope that, almost 60 years after the Trinity atomic bomb test, there are so few nuclear powers. But the

main reason non-nuclear states agreed to foreswear the development of these weapons was the commitment made by the

nuclear states, embodied in Clause VI of the treaty, to move toward the eventual elimination of nuclear

weapons.

The Bush administration's devotion to a new round of nuclear development breaks that commitment,

and inevitably weakens the antiproliferation order. That is the dread implication in Brazil's unexpected defiance

of the International Atomic Energy Agency. A new age of proliferation is just beginning, and George W. Bush is its

father.

Kerry is on record in this campaign as wanting to move in exactly the opposite direction. Across two

decades in the US Senate, especially as a main supporter of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program,

Kerry has shown that he understands the urgency of turning the worst legacy of the Cold War back on

itself.

In his challenges to President Bush's unilateralism, Kerry has demonstrated his commitment to

working with other nations as the only way to make the world safe from nuclear terrorism -- a commitment Bush mocks

as a "global test." Across the range of issues, from nuclear diplomacy to threat reduction to the trap of

earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, Kerry has shown his mastery of the political and military complexities, just as,

in response, Bush has put on display his cynical ignorance. In other matters, the president's ineptness and

two-facedness are disheartening, but here they represent a mortal

danger."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/26/for_nuclear_safety_

the_choice_is_clear?mode=PF