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
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.