Presidential Candidates in Debate

[Holmes]

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

OLITICS/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?

Yes and (shockingly) yes.

[DrSmellThis]

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

[Holmes]

"The proceeding statement is true.

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

Eagerly awaiting Edwards Vs. Satan...

[DrSmellThis]

Has anyone else noticed that

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

[DrSmellThis]

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,'" 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! 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?? 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.]

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]

Well it is hard work.

[koolking1]

and lets not forget Cheney

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

[DrSmellThis]

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]

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]

Debate Friday Night October

9, 2004

Kerry B-

Bush D-

ELK

[koolking1]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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'.").

[belgareth]

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]

Idiotic? It's good to see

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

believe! 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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.