I'm going to kick off our scintillating analysis of the Bush-Kerry Debates pre-emptively, and nobody can stop me, especially those of you from inferior countries.

W will make an ass out of himself and my country before the entire world, by reverting to carefully-prepared mantras and lacking a logical segue from the flow of the debate, whenever over his head (which will be most of the time). I plan to get drunk and laugh insubordinately at the cretin, and hope that Karl Rove doesn't cancel the tour.

Kerry, on the other hand, will surpass his spineless fears of being controversial by demonstrating his ability to think. On his feet.

On your feet, Leutenant Kerry!!! It's time to shock the monkey.
Too much at stake
Ground beneath me shake
And the news is breaking

Shock! - watch the monkey get hurt, monkey

W will make an ass out of himself and my country before the entire world, by reverting to carefully-prepared mantras and lacking a logical segue from the flow of the debate, whenever over his head (which will be most of the time).

And that will only make him more popular. Gee, can you tell my faith in my fellow Americans is nearly threadbare?

W will make an ass out of himself and my country before the entire world, by reverting to carefully-prepared mantras and lacking a logical segue from the flow of the debate,The problem is that most americans debate this way... and won't see a problem with it.

Oh Bush will win the debates...no one expects him to win because he is arguably (retarded) stupid (a very fine line). When it looks like he can speak... and stay on message our low expectations would be surpassed. Kerry has no luxury.

Except that he doesn't exactly have to even surpass himself. The clod that he is seems rather good enough for many. What I'm actually hoping is that this election brings chaos to polling: either the majority of Americans are idiots, or the majority of Americans like things this way, or we'll see the pollsters shown clueless come election day. If Kerry wins, I don't think it will be "close" (e.g. <5% popular vote). Bush will either eek this one out--possibly with post-election controversy and evidence of vote tampering--or Kerry will win definitively. The GOP base carries strong numbers; if Bush gets less than 40% of the vote, it will signal an abandonment by at least a portion of the base.

But neither the fiscal conservatives nor religious right (e.g. those who like American vice) have anyplace to go. Moderates have to decide to take a gamble on the other party. It's a luxury not of incumbency but of conservatism: when you appeal to the lowest aspects of people--superstition, fear, and greed--you'll always rope in the superstitious, frightened, and greedy. And everybody knows that when quantity counts more than quality, the appeal to the Lowest Common Denominator works best. When quantity is more important, the bottom end of the gene pool suddenly become much more valuable than normal.

Democrats win when people think, or when they're running unopposed. Americans need very much to think, else we will wind up endorsing the Bush Doctrine, the war-hawks, and much of what we claim is bad. Compassion does not come at gunpoint, except to those in the crosshairs.

The world wept when our towers were hit. If we elect Bush and get hit again, the world might just put up a collective shaking of the head, a tsking of our policies, and then get on with life. You know, kind of how we treat the rest of the world.

I can't tell you how enjoyable it is to watch y'all making whining into a national spectator sport.

Thanks for your participation, G. When you have something substantive to add, I'll still be avidly watching. If you try, I'm sure you can muster some thought, and not just cynical and hypocritical whining of your own. In the mean time, I for one am happy to entertain.

...and not just cynical and hypocritical whining of your own.
Thank you for comfirming my observations.

:D :D :D

The debates are going to be fixed, who's got the media in their pocket?. Ahh!! common you all, they are going to make Bush look like a couragious genius who stood up against terrorists. They are going to try and make Kerry look like some undecisive shmuck.

Unfortunately here in this country, it's who ever has more clout with the media that wins the electoral votes. And right now the spinners are even working to make anything derogatory agaisnt this president a crime!!. http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/399/14320_hate.html

Godless.

Hypewaders:

Moderation has long seen fit to let such distractions continue, so there's not much we can do about it. Personally, I say ignore G. After all, when my daughter sees dog excrement lying on the ground, I tell her to keep walking and leave it be. Admittedly, since there's a shovel near at hand, there is the temptation to crack skulls, so to speak. But then I'd have to clean up the mess.

Nobody says we have to care what G says. And I don't see why we should. It's obvious he doesn't.

Godless:

Right now my faith in my neighbors is eroding on a certain level, but I do think we're letting too many other factors affect our consideration. Why am I so down on Americans? Because of polls, for heaven's sake. I should know better: the polls mean nothing, yet if I take them seriously, my only request of the terrorists is that they hit Los Angeles before getting to Seattle, so I can take off for Canada. Selfish, indeed.

But in the end, I need to not be so down. The polls are even less-reliable and less truthful than four years ago. I should wait for my American neighbors to actually throw the country away before excoriating them on that pont.

And one of the things that gives me hope is the depravity of the Bush administration. This sort of stuff plays well in the short-term, and the point is to keep the public drunk with it long enough to sneak out the back door before having the demolition crews drop the roof on them. But if it's late in the game and you're running out of booze, there's a frightening possibility that the people will suddenly get serious. The Bush administration is obviously aware of this, and the keg's already spitting foam.

Rabid: that's our GOP.

The assertion that "bush is stupid" illuminates far more stupidity than his own.

Nobody says we have to care what G says. And I don't see why we should. It's obvious he doesn't.
Then you want to be more like me than I you. Thanks for the compliment. :D

The assertion that "bush is stupid" illuminates far more stupidity than his own.

Only in the sense that overgeneralizations are usually worthless, or worse, obfuscations of the truth.

Bush doesn't have the vocabulary or the capacity for abstract thought or the sense of uncertainty that most people bring to momentous decisions. Other than that, he does exactly what any reasonable person should expect of someone in his position and from his upbringing. He acts completely in the interest of himself and his circle of supporters. He takes no responsibility whatsoever for his actions. He does what he is told to do by a few stronger, older males. And if he loses this election, he will pout about it and maybe even commit the actions of a sore loser.

Someone who is "stupid" makes irrational decisions and is incapable of understanding cause-and-effect. Bush only seems stupid because the things he does seem so unreasonable to people like us. But if you look at the motivations of the born-again, the super-wealthy and those overwrought with fear of the unknown, then his actions are right on target.

You know T. I've lost faith in my neighbors for quite some time. In my early twenties I picked up a book by Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's sucesor "was heavily studing Objectivism then" anyhow the book title "Ominous Parallels" That book dealt with the transformation that the US is been heading towarts fascism, much the same manner as Nazi Germany. Today I see some of those predictions come to light. Never took it seriously then, but then after 9-11 things took a turn for the worst.

I don't trust polls, but the majority of Americans don't vote their conscious. They vote for the popularity N Kerry just does not have it. He hasn't shown enough balls to take on the Bush administration, beat around the "bush" for quite some time, and only after the GOP convention did he come out swinging a little bit more. Too little too late, I think, he has to literally make Bush look like a total idiot on the debate, however it's like hollywood, every question asked has been rehersed, as well as every answer. It all depends what Kerry answers with to those questions the "media" will ask.

But it wont ask anything that will leave bush speechless.

Like Why did he keep reading to the school kids after he knew we under attack.
Why the SS didn't come and rush him out?
Did he have enough warning that a threat was emminent?. Oviously he did!!.
http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html

We all know the guy is quilty as shiet, however when has anything made clear in the Bush's media blitz?.. They are not asking the right questions... It's Hollywood....

Godless.

Like Why did he keep reading to the school kids after he knew we under attack.
Why the SS didn't come and rush him out?


He's answered this before with, he didn't want to cause a panic with the children. I know its a weak excuse but the American public seems to buy it... Also, Card did come into the schoolroom and inform him of what was gonig on, Bush admits that he knew America was under attack while he was sitting there, and decided that his best course of action would be to not cause a panic and finish the school activity. He's on O'Reilly tonight, part 3 of the interview with Bush, and I believe he will be asked this very question tonight.

It just dawned on me that there will be no debate, as some posters here were trying to warn me, because the Bush campaign would not agree to having an actual debate. The structure (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/30/DEBATE.TMP) of the encounter is to be back-to-back prepared speeches, with no point/counterpoint, no live expansion on or development of ideas. The Bush campaign even wanted to keep candidate reactions to an opponent's boilerplate speech off-camera (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/30/DEBATE.TMP), but this rule will apparently be ignored.

It seems beyond hope that Kerry would muster the courage to ignore the constraints that obviate actual debate, and direct incisive questions directly at the President, whose live accountability before the nation should be instinctively considered an inalienable right by all parties living in a truly open society governed by the people.

The media and Presidential campaigns are operating under the assumption that Americans are too uneducated to know the difference between a set of short speeches and a formal debate. In vacantly consuming this media ruse, Americans are demonstrating again our preference for illusion over reality, and appearances over accountability.

I’m not even going to watch the debates out of distaste and the fact that my mind is made up, but I predict that one side will say Kerry has won and the other side will say Bush has won and like the Gore vs Bush debates of last time no clear victor will be declared until years later.

Bush-Cheney Kerry-Edwards Memorandum of Understanding (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/debate_mou.pdf)

This document spells out the shameful rules of this "debate".

I still plan to watch the production. I consider it a patriotic duty. However carefully orchestrated, this is still a live presentation before the nation by two men seeking the most powerful public office in the world. However scripted, it's the closest thing to personal intellectual accountability by leadership to the citizenry that we are offered. We can hardly demand more openness in government if we turn away at the closest approximation of accountable leadership, of submission for public scrutiny of the reasoning, motivations, plans, and policies of our future President.

Comeon fetus, it will be fun! Here's how:

Whenever W says something incomprehensible or flat out grammatically incorrect, take a shot of tequila. Whenever Kerry rambles aimlessly in order to avoid directly answering a morally relevant question, key a beer. It'll be a party in no time.

They have designed the debates to be only basically an interview, with soundbites and talking points as the responses there is time for.

If Bush is such a strong and great leader, the justified leader of the free world -- why were they so concerned about protecting him? Apparently it was the Bush camp who made 90% of the long lists of specific demands to limit the freedom of both debators.

If he is so great, why handle him like a boy in the bubble?

The candidates' debates are clearly not debates. A formal debate (look at any set of rules) give the proposition to the debaters about a half an hour before the debate begins. Then the debate begins, each side taking turns making their constructive cases and then rebutting the opposition's arguments. The fine details of the rules vary, but this is pretty much how it goes.

I think it would be wonderful to see a Bush-Kerry debate played by these rules. It seems appropriate to test the candidates on their general grasp of current issues, their ability to think cogently with little advance preparation, and their ability to construct a logically reasoned argument under pressure. These are arguably useful traits in a president.

It would have to be a non-obvious topic, which the candidates could be expected to have opposing positions on. Suggestions?

Ok....
I just watched a hour of the Bush/Kerry Debate...
To beat you all to the clock, I will post this thread now.

I can not stand listening to Bush ANYMORE.... The man is a fool... He has repeated himself MANY times already in this debate.

This has to be the most heated debate in the history of the United States. The main topic of it all is WAR....

War...!
War...!
War...

Enough....

I feel Kerry will make a HUGE change in America and the world...
For the better.
But re-electing Bush... it is just suicide for us all....

Being America's neighbor, I personaly will fear for my life, no... the world, if Bush is re-elected...

Please excuse me for not posting this in the "sticky thread"...
I felt that after watching most of the debate.... the topic needed a fresh start.

I will repeat my self: "I predict that one side will say Kerry has won and the other side will say Bush has won and like the Gore vs Bush debates of last time no clear victor will be declared until years later."

but for your sack hypewaders beat you by a long shot

Quite the odd alteration of a (my) thread Fetus...
I now lack intrest in posting anything on American Politics....

Thank you?

I wanted to make a thread ON THE debate.... not ABOUT debates....

Rather you conjoined my thread into another thread... making it pointless for me to of posted it in the first place....

Kerry did easily. Bush looked bad.

Are you serious?

Yes. IMO, bush was nervous, somewhat stammering and seemed completely out of his element. Conversely, Kerry seemed quite comfortable and in strong command of the issues. Hypwaders prediction was IMO, mostly correct. I don't think Bush made a complete ass of himself, but a bit.

I'm not up for giving any analysis right now, but did anyone watch MSNBC's coverage? Or, at least, the first few minutes after? Andrea Mitchell was answering a question for Chris Matthews, and if anyone else saw the sign in the background, they're well aware of why I'm grinning too broadly to give serious analysis.

Don't tease tiassa. What happened?

Quigly, I'm interested in why you think Bush won. Would you mind explaining?

Bush made a complete ass of himself. Anyone who could stand by someone who was as illspoken and nonverbal as Bush, I now view as an incorrigible idiot.

A Canadian,

well now its a sticky about and on the debates. That 3 threads down anyone else want to start a thread/poll on the same topic, try me.

When I posted the thread, it was the only one.

Here are the results from Hardball http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#survey

That's when I checked.

My avatar is jumping for Joy!!. :D

Godless.

wesmorris,

Nope there was A Canadian before yours, I merged it but left his title (bush/kerry debate!!!) and poll with hypewaders thread, then you make a nearly identical thread and poll, don't feel bad in the merge it seems his poll was replaced by yours.

I don't feel bad at all. I'm just telling you that I looked before I posted and there wasn't one. It was probably being posted while I posted. I then looked again after I posted, but perhaps I missed the other or the database was slow in updating because I didn't see one.

Anyways I did not watch the debate but I seriously believe that the polls will say 50/50 +/-~5% believe Bush or Kerry won, thus resulting in a net gain of few if anyone changing their minds. Perhaps those unicorn swing voters give a dam though.

wesmorris

You posted yours at 09:45 PM he posted his at 09:14 PM, but fine what ever you say.

Ah, there was just these women in the crowd, you could see them behind Andrea Mitchell in the medium close-up. They had a tailored campaign sign for I don't know what, which had been cropped to the word "Poo" above a Kerry/Edwards sticker. It took me a minute to be sure that's what I was seeing; I had to record the debate for our occasional roommate, so I'll double-check. Jeez, I should go stop the tape ....

Complaining about the fetus somewhere else now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#survey

for lack of a better word...

Bush got "owned" in that particular poll....

I feel like making a political cartoon or George Bush spanking Bush Jr. with a caption below saying "Sorry Dad, I Will try harder in 4 years!!!"

Can anyone name a specific point that they found where Bush (or kerry) lost this debate?

Internet polls are not statistically accurate.

Kerry definetly won the debate. He looked more "presidential" than Bush.

How many times did Bush say "it's hard work!"?. He really looked like HE was working hard (painfully at times).

Well the polls jumped from 150,000 to 250,000 poeple participating in only 10 minutes...
Kerrys still remains in the lead...

I felt Bush lost the debate after his many pauses during answering questions.
And saying nothing BUT "it is hard work" for the first half an hour...

EDIT: poeple are posting quick, this is in reply to WellCookedFetus's last post.

Oy!! Ya.

Kerry sounded as a better debater, the body language was very interesting too. Kerry looked more secure, confident, and knowing what to say. While bush was stooping, looking downward, and had long pause, as if looking for the answers, not secure, nervous. Not what is expected of a Leader of a nation such as this.

However the spin of media tries to place Bush as the winner. Even though he looked that he was getting hammered by Kerry. aaaa...aaaa...welll Sorry I just had a bushism moment..

Godless.

Ok how about from a person that thinks Bush won, can you explain why? Quigly you there?

Kerry was going crazy with writing notes down as well.

Again I was a minute late with my reply....


Bush is growing slowly in the MSNBC poll... must mean that the poeple as slow as him are finaly getting involved.

WCF -

I think the more specific reviews are coming tomorrow. In general, somewhere around 45 minutes (I'll have to check the tape or transcript), Bush seemed to stumble; Bush's congenial style looked more like haggard slouching than anything; Kerry responded to Bush's litany of "changing positions" so effectively that the President found himself with no leverage, and apparently no backup plan.

Kerry sometimes looked irritated while Bush spoke, but Bush looked ... I'm sorry, but in this world of the new conservative political correctness, there is no way to accurately describe the President's expression (e.g. "unsure", "confused", "befuddled") without falling within the GOP's parameters of "hate speech".

Kerry's question, "Which is worse?" was something Bush seemed unable to answer. It was perhaps a stark moment for the Bush campaign because Kerry might have found an experession of the issue accessible to the lowest intellects among registered or potential voters. And I must tip my hat to the merest hint of annoyance in Kerry's voice, which I think communicated rather well the notion of, Like, are these really the same thing?

However, I don't feel like cycling through the tape right now; I don't feel like raiding the rush transcript at the time. I think much of people's reactions has to do with Kerry's steadiness and George W. Bush's appearance as an old man trying to defend his title against a ferocious and determined opponent with more advantages over the champion than we can count. I think at some point Bush became aware that he wasn't doing as well as he wanted, and that caused him to stumble even more.

Bush was on-message, as far as I could tell, but Kerry essentially slashed the tires out from under that message. Bush/Dick may seat two, but they need a new set of wheels to carry them to Election Day.

A Canadian,

Ok so there something Kerry did wrong, I mean anything a these candidates do, a mis-placed breath, a pause could be called a wrong. Which is way I find these debates a farce.

I liked the part where Kerry was like "Even your dad was smarter than you," and came off completely legit.

Roman,

He really said that? :eek: :D

A Canadian,

Ok so there something Kerry did wrong, I mean anything a these candidates do, a mis-placed breath, a pause could be called a wrong. Which is way I find these debates a farce.

Erm.....
ok?

But one thing Kerry did do wrong was BLAME Bush alot....
But it seem to of worked....

All in all, Kerry was still on top of things....

Bush was on-message, as far as I could tell, but Kerry essentially slashed the tires out from under that message. Bush/Dick may seat two, but they need a new set of wheels to carry them to Election Day.

Tires?? By the looks of it with two more debates coming they might end up with out an engine.. :o

:D

Godless.

ahh!! I'm looking at msnbc on TV and checked the numbers Kerry is 71% out of 383451 responces..I'm not real good a math, but I think that will make Kerry the clear WINNER!!.
G.

409392 responses


amazing.....
it grows by 100,000 every 10 minutes now.....

I'm very biased, but even right-wing bloggers at the Free Republics ("Freepers") are conceding this one to Kerry. I must concur with them, that Kerry simply blew Bush out of the water. It was not so much that Kerry led Bush into verbal traps or anything, but Kerry was so composed and articulate while Bush stammered, and rehashed statement after statement. On a more shallow note, I think Kerry looked very handsome as the lighting eliminated the shadows under his eye sockets which unfortunately tends to occur at times.

Bush tried many times to stick the flip-flop label on Kerry especially in times of desperation, but Kerry quickly deflected by saying he has had one consistent stance on Iraq: Saddam was a threat, and there was a right way to confront him and a wrong way to confront him.

I thought Bush won. Kerry simply couldn't get any solid ground going because he's always agreed with the war, and so tends to paint himself as a flip-flopper the more he critiques it. His only avenue was to criticize the handling of the war, but he scored very few points here; He wasn't convincing in arguing that diplomacy needed more time (what fourteen U.N resolutions wasn't enough?), and failed to articulate what a 'better' handling was. All he could do was point out, the obvious, that Iraq was turning into a disaster. But everybody already knows that.. Bush easily countered by saying that there is no easy way to defeat evil terrorists and showed that he is a resolute person that won’t abandon his principles just because things get tricky. Kerry also made an ass of himself on the Nth Korea issue. He spent half the debate talking about the need to act amongst coalitions, but then said America should act unilaterally with nth Korea. Um WHAT? Bush eaisly exposed this as naive and unproductive. I don’t think that Kerry got a point on Bush on any issue. On the other hand, Bush easily exposed Kerry’s naive and inconsistent attitude to foreign policy. The most potent blow was: ' a global standard? I don't know what that means. Personally I'm more interested in protecting the American people'.

Vlad, thank you, but coud you vote, in the poll its not looking to good.

Vlad by the way would you have voted for bush before hand?

Where's the option for Jim Lehrer?

He's the only one that spoke who didn't give a canned response or repeat himself.

Vlad I'm a registered Republican, and Bush just got NAILED!!! :rolleyes:

Bush looked as if were nervous to be there, he didn't look confident. He assumes that everyone knows his position. What position flippint off the UN, then coming begging for assistance after we have made a mess of Irag.

Need we remind you, that there was NO WMD's found in Irag, when this was the issue of going to war, The prick lied and people died. What intellengence, the one that PRESUMED that there was WMD's in Irag... :rolleyes:

And still he try's to tie Irag with 9-11 when the 9-11 COMMISSION found no freaking connection.. Osama Bin Ladden is laughing his ass off right about now, when viewing this guy make a complete J.A. of himself.

Godless.

Bush was virtually rendered speechless by Kerry's closing appeal that America's future belongs to freedom, not fear.

http://www.buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/sub2
G.

Liberal media conspiracy? There is no liberal media conspiracy.

Having considered that assertion, the reader may choose to wonder why I drive that point home on a daily basis of late. And what has it to do with this topic?

Very simply, as I've complained that Bush & Co. have made a mockery of honesty and truth, as I've been disgusted at this administration's attempt to render the idea of considering facts as hateful, as the media has taken off its gloves--having been slapped at least one too many times by a clearly-hostile president, and rising to the occasion of their jobs in response to the notion of an upcoming election--and started treating the President according to facts, some things, no matter how kindly-stated, are simply damaging portrayals:

At the end, Kerry was the most visibly pleased and the most effusive in thanking his opponent. Kerry walked up to the front of the stage, shaking two fists victoriously, as he summoned his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, to the stage. Bush barely mentioned his opponent and went over for a hug from first lady Laura Bush.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64003-2004Oct1.html)
_____________________

• Allen, Mike. "Kerry vs. the Rules, Bush vs. His Temper". Washington Post, October 1, 2004; page A08. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64003-2004Oct1.html

Haven't read this entire thread, so if this has been mentioned then sorry.

I am rewatching the debate now.

The question: War in Iraq worth the cost of American lives?

Bush's answer to this question is the most obviously coached answer yet. He starts out saying "My heart..." pause. Then he changes it to "It's hard..." then he starts dropping names about some war widow and stammering and stuttering as he tries to repeat the details that are blabbing away in his ear... or the teleprompter... or whereever the coaching is coming from.

I think I heard him say he was loving the war widow too. Maybe I misheard? Right after this he talks about loved ones as opposed to loving the war widow.

There's probably transcripts available right?


And right before this question he was in the middle of a retort and still was in the green on his timer and just out of the blue he says, "Let me finish." I think he was talking to Cheney or whoever was coaching him...

It's obvious that he's been practicing with the voice in his ear though.


Anyway, I'm more concerned about domestic affairs. Will that be the focus of the next debate?

kerry won this debate by a landslide... it seemed like no contest... im curious now to see how he handles domestic issues...

Here we go:

Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 1,052 as of today?

BUSH: You know, every life is precious. Every life matters. You know, my hardest -- the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best I can to provide comfort for the loved ones who lost a son or a daughter or a husband or wife.

You know, I think about Missy Johnson. She's a fantastic lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina. She and her son Brian, they came to see me. Her husband PJ got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq.

You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way.

Well, apparently they heard hardest. I heard "My heart."

Anyway, I found the transcript here (http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=71504).


Edit: Oh, what's the deal with the transcripts being released on Wednesday? As if the whole thing was scripted.

Vlad I'm a registered Republican, and Bush just got NAILED!!! :rolleyes:

Bush looked as if were nervous to be there, he didn't look confident. He assumes that everyone knows his position. What position flippint off the UN, then coming begging for assistance after we have made a mess of Irag.

Need we remind you, that there was NO WMD's found in Irag, when this was the issue of going to war, The prick lied and people died. What intellengence, the one that PRESUMED that there was WMD's in Irag... :rolleyes:

And still he try's to tie Irag with 9-11 when the 9-11 COMMISSION found no freaking connection.. Osama Bin Ladden is laughing his ass off right about now, when viewing this guy make a complete J.A. of himself.

Godless.

I bet you're not a registered Republican.

I'm not saying that all Bushes arguments were valid. But Kerry did not expose any of Bush's invalid arguments, if there were some. Kerry was/is undoubtedly a better speaker, but that doesn't count for much when you've got nothing to work with. If Kerry had of been against the war from the start, he might have had some leverage to refute Bushes logic about the war, but since Kerry was fundamentally for the war in all the same ways Bush was, he was not able to offer any substantial criticism of the war other than it was handled wrong. It's hardly convincing. I thought Kerry very eloquently and succinctly articulated a case that was rife with inconsistencies and loopholes. Bush was less eloquent, but solid. People are calling Kerry the winner now, but that's just because he did better than people expected him to. You wait until people start dismantling the transcript, it will become apparent that Bush won on substance.

Vlad
I was a little confused myself about Kerry wanting a war coalition, and then supporting bilateral (not unilateral as you said) talks. However, Bush simply twisted Kerry's position to make it look unilateral- Kerry even said it himself that he wanted China involved. Indeed, China would stay involved because the Chinese are concerned over N. Korea.

I know you republicans have one track minds and short attention spans, so it's completely understandable that you didnt catch that last bit, towards the end.[/jerk]

Vlad
I was a little confused myself about Kerry wanting a war coalition, and then supporting bilateral (not unilateral as you said) talks. However, Bush simply twisted Kerry's position to make it look unilateral- Kerry even said it himself that he wanted China involved. Indeed, China would stay involved because the Chinese are concerned over N. Korea.

I know you republicans have one track minds and short attention spans, so it's completely understandable that you didnt catch that last bit, towards the end.[/jerk]

Man, you cannot be multilateral and bilateral at the same time. Kerry's position was contradictory.

Edit: Oh, what's the deal with the transcripts being released on Wednesday? As if the whole thing was scripted.

They can probably just dump the text from closed-captioning. That's my guess, anyway. Cable-news runs quotes on the ticker during the speeches, debates, &c.

However, of your quotation, I could have sworn that among the rules (which are largely being attributed to the Bush campaign) was, "No targeted voters", a tactic used masterfully by Clinton, poorly by everyone else, and Bush in that bite you've provided.

Of course, among all the jokes about the rules, this could--I suppose--be one of them. I have the .pdf, I just haven't read the thing.

Note on Edit: I just looked through the rules; didn't see it on my initial perusal, and don't care to go through them again. Now my only regret is that I can't remember who put that line out there; subtle, indeed.

*I bet you're not a registered Republican.

If my printer/scanner weren't packed I'd make the copy of my registration to prove it.
but since I've be leaving to move to Las Vegas within days, "I Bet" is something you wouldn't want to do with me!!.

I would have voted for the idiot in 2000 however I wasn't registered here in Houston, id just moved here, when I went I was turned down, because of my short time that I've lived here. I never heard crap like that before. Anyhow I picked up a registration card then N have kept it recent. I'm a republican, and this guy has decieved the republican ideal that i had stood for. I find that I'm not alone on this. http://www.republicansforkerry.org/

Now I regret that I will be in the same boat as in 2000, since I'll be moving to Las Vegas, i'm not "registered" to vote in Nevada, I will try to go and see what happens, I would most defenetly vote for Kerry.
Godless.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20041001/cartoon20041001.gif (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1086)
The Great Fear? David Horsey, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 1, 2004.

• • •

I haven't much to add; it does seem to cast the undecided voters in the same light as a classic courtroom joke: Just who do you find to put on a jury that hasn't heard of ... (e.g. O.J. Simpson, Oliver North, &c.)

That and for some reason it reminds me of an old Kliban.

Here you go Val from one Republican to another ;)

Read this: Rhetoric & Reality (http://www.geocities.com/reconsideringiraq/rhetoric.html)

Godless.

They can probably just dump the text from closed-captioning. That's my guess, anyway. Cable-news runs quotes on the ticker during the speeches, debates, &c.

Ahh. Wait. While looking for the transcript I came across a page that turned out to be 'satire'. :p Pretty crappy satire. I should have did a more diligent search about the 'pre-release' of the transcript and I would have found out that only one crappy satire site had the story.

:blush:


I'm still wondering just how much lovin' Bush gave to Missy Johnson. How could he take advantage of a war widow that way? That's worse than Clinton getting on an intern... :D

It's a valid question nonetheless; the transcripts are usually up within minutes. Of course, that also reveals how much attention I actually paid to the recital--I mean debate. Wednesday? Shows how much attention I'm paying to the calendar ....

I think the point where Kerry scored most heavily was when he said

"I will make a flat statement. The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq. And our goal, in my administration, would be to get all of the troops out of there with the minimal amount you need for training and logistics, as we do in some other countries in the world after a war, to be able to sustain the peace."

Bush did not respond to this slap of the gauntlet, which means that he either wasn't paying attention (possible) or that he holds the opposite position but couldn't bring himself to say so. Kerry put the whole Iraq issue on the line, gave Bush an opportunity to make hay, and Bush flubbed it with by going off on a tangent about Allawi and freedom.

Having said this, I still have to wonder how Kerry is going to pull off a general withdrawal while stabilizing the country. Iraq, too.

The debate was much better than I expected, in the sense that it afforded considerable (unprecedented?) direct interaction between the candidates, and offered a small but rare window into the thought processes of each. Bush exceeded my expectations, and Kerry dashed them. This debate was a superficial draw. But under the surface, I think it was another signpost on the way to America's denial of decline, and decline through denial.

President Bush far surpassed my expectations in preparation and patience, although it began wearing thin as the end of the show approached. I sense that debating truly is torture for Bush- he could obviously be broken, with a little more time under the microscope. Jim Lehrer, as he as done with the News Hour of late, gives hard-nosed journalism that cuddly Charmin softness we could do better without in these hard times.

Kerry had the eloquence to reveal the either incomplete or top-secret outer limits of his foreign policy platform thus far. He claims Iraq is a mistake he can "fix" by selling the fiasco to rehabilitated allies who will join us in catching bullets and IUD schrapnel. He offers to lure them with Iraqi booty, which probably did not endear him to Iraqis or Arabs tonite. He asserts for our noble troops effectively, Give Them Victory, or Give Them Death. I'm not sure if that goes over so well for the troops who must do the fighting and dying first-hand, in order to wrest an elusive victory from an occupation that should never have been initiated. Kerry wants us to believe he can turn water into wine, and make an unjust war just. Most telling of all, he put Israel first before America in a phrase describing the imperative to stabilize Iraq.

Ironically, this debate leaves Kerry by far the more inscrutable one to me. I find it easy to believe his loyalty to Israel is a very close second to his loyalty to the USA. But I'm not so sure about his confidence in an American victory in Iraq. I suspect that Kerry deliberately leaves the definition of victory in that war ambiguous (Lehrer sorely let us down by not pressing him on this). I suspect that Kerry leaves much unsaid, because he (and this goes for the Democratic Party as a whole) lacks faith that America can face up to the reality of the situation, where American-led stabilization of Iraq is an impossibility; where American world pre-eminence is generally falling out of favor. Kerry is afraid to confront American denial.

A true leader for the times would clearly identify the challenges before the nation, without treating the citizenry like sheltered children. A fitting leader can exude optimism for the future even while addressing our darkest imminent challenges. Kerry is not a leader for our times. America's present political culture may be tragically incapable of raising up a leader who can be honest with us about what we must do. So the strongest impression i am left with from this debate is one of sadness.

Godless, thanks for that Republicans for Humility (http://www.republicansforhumility.com/) link. I was unaware of R4H, and it's very good stuff.

....It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us.....but if we're a humble nation they'll respect us.
-GWB 10-11-2000

....it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.
-GWB 10-11-2000

If Kerry and the Dimocratic Party were not afraid to confront misplaced American belligerence head-on, they could have brought up these statements from the 2000 debate, they could have mopped up the floor with him. But the charm's wound up. Like stubborn children, America can't be wrong, and we'll destroy millions of lives, and even our own futures before conceding on that.

Let me understand this here: why is that all the people that think Bush the winner (be it hard cores like vlad that would probably say shit smells good if it came out of bush) use logical arguments based off what was said in the debates to prove Kerry the loser, when everyone else says how Kerry won by looking much better then Bush, by being on the offensive and other superficial reasoning?

WCF...

Well I didn't see the whole debate from the start live, luckingly I cought it on Fox latter all over again. My assesment after completely watching the whole thing is that Bush didn't get his ass completely kicked, one rebutal that stood out, a quick quirk if you will. Is when Bush said "I don't know how you going to pay for that? But that's for another debate!" Anyhow, thinking about it, Kerry like any onther politician making promises is promising quite a bit, with out raising tax, money. You know the rich will not get screwed as bad as we middle class people, we always get the shaft. But overall I do put the winning of so call "debate" on Kerry, but think of the millions of Americans who would claim, well Bush comes accross as I would under the spot light, he sounds like my neighbor, etc.. People relate to the "home boy image" sad this is. I thought of Kerry as decisive to win this debate, he was articulate with the execution of his speech, without beating around the "bush" much. Though sad the details of "how" he is going to strengthen our homeland security is going to happen without raising taxes. "This homeland security BS" really makes me think that Kerry if strengthening this issue will further speed our "police state status" it's allready pretty bad with the so call "patriot acts". Have you read these?.

Godless.

Although I find Kerry did much better than Bush, Kerry had the opportunity to bury Bush. Bush seemed very uncomfortable throughout the whole debate. Kerry should have looked at Bush agressively and asked:
"Mr. President, what were you thinking when ... ?"
"Mr. President, what exactly did you mean when you said ...?"
"Mr. President, why did you tell the American people ... ?"

Let me understand this here: why is that all the people that think Bush the winner (be it hard cores like vlad that would probably say shit smells good if it came out of bush) use logical arguments based off what was said in the debates to prove Kerry the loser, when everyone else says how Kerry won by looking much better then Bush, by being on the offensive and other superficial reasoning?

I have boldfaced a phrase above that may answer your own question. To wit:

• The Bush campaign harangues Kerry for his position on the war. The changes they note can be demonstrated superficially, with sound bites and edited quotes.
• Kerry fired back in the debate by reiterating firmly and clearly that anyone examining his historical position will find consistency and that the uncertainty--the mixed signals--actually come from Bush: what was once a mission about disarmament that would not change is now a mission about potential manufacturing capabilities that has, apparently--(chortle!)--never changed..

On this count, for instance, if one bases their logic on what Bush says, they base their logic on something not demonstrable in history.

Kerry's big challenge is that of any Democrat facing an incumbent Republican: clarify, don't confuse.

The GOP strategy works very well in a news-media setting: quick sound bites, single-layer ideas, and a dependence on ideological myopia and scattered memory. But in an extended forum with a prerequisite attention span, the post-postmodern GOP logical construction came apart in the President's hands like a house of cards in an autumn wind.

Just a note ... the GOP needed this one; the next debate, as I recall, is domestic issues, and they're simply not going to win that one. They would much rather, unless of course the conventional wisdom of politics has gone completely insane in relation to itself, cast the third debate as a rubber match instead of come in down two.

Literally, Kerry will have to throw that debate intentionally for Bush to have a chance, or else Karl Rove will have to convince Americans that John Kerry is going to sodomize and then eat their children.

You guys are all like post-aholics or something. I watched the debate and I will agree that I think Kerry is a better speaker/debater. He may even be the master debater, but I don't think there was much substance behind what he was saying.

Again, we as the public don't get to see a lot of the behind the scenes intelligence and behind the scenes discussions between our president and other world leaders, so right there Bush has some leverage. The problem with the debate is that Kerry is swayed because of political reasons. Bush has substance and does what he says he's going to do. Kerry is for and then against.... What if Kerry were president and decided to do a pre-emptive strike somewhere, which in the debate he never denied that he wouldn't do it if it came down to it, but then because his polls were down or because of some other reason to sway, he changes his mind and pulls all the troops out without accomplishing an objective. Which is Worse. That is a good question. Which is worse, Following through with a decision and seeing to it that the mission is accomplished or beginning a race and deciding in the middle to just stop running.

I have always thought it had to be majorly hard work to be the president and try to campaign for the job again. Especially with all that is going on now. I will give it to Kerry that Kerry looked more vibrant and alive, but probably because he hasn't had the Work Load that Bush has. They are still humans believe it or not.

The final thing as I am trying to remember the debate from last night was all those things that Kerry said he would do as far as funding this and funding that. Bush looked at him and said, I would love to know how he plans on paying for all of that. Do we know? Obviously, he is one that doesn't mind raising the taxes, but I don't know that you can make enough $$ to fund all that he spoke about, but again, I am not the one looking at the $$ income and expenses.

He may even be the master debater, but I don't think there was much substance behind what he was saying.

Perhaps this is symptomatic of politics in general; it is, after all, what we, the people, ask.

In the meantime, if I accept for argument that there wasn't much subtance behind what Kerry was saying, how do you think that stacks up to George W. Bush's callous disregard for history, fact, or truth?

Also, I'm curious: how can you criticize Kerry so broadly for wanting to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthiest portion? How would you propose we pay for Bush's spending? By not spending? Oh, I know, I know--we can take it from the education and infrastructure. Our classrooms aren't overcrowded yet, and our roads are such condition as to exceed our magnanimous expectations. And, of course, health care, unless it's for people who are so old as to have one foot in the grave.

Well, I don't care one way or the other about the Rich person tax cut, because I don't fall in the range at all. Ok, so we do away with that. We save a little bit of money, but not a whole lot. Cut Welfare. I know you can argue that, but it is a system that encourages the lazy to continue being lazy. I didn't mean to criticize Kerry's suggestion to eliminate that tax, but I still propose that that wouldn't create the kind of Working capital to fund all his other political agendas if he were in the big house.

"In the meantime, if I accept for argument that there wasn't much subtance behind what Kerry was saying, how do you think that stacks up to George W. Bush's callous disregard for history, fact, or truth?"

I am tired, please give examples.

Quiqly:

In this state (minnnesota) you can only receive welfare for a maximum of 3 months, and you have to go in weekly with employer's signatures proving that you are applying and interviewing for jobs. ( I Think a total of 20 job-searching hours a week must be proved). How is this encouraging the lazy to continue being lazy? Fact is, under Bush we lost a LOT of jobs and many people would be living in poverty if it wern't for unemployment and welfare!

I personally thought Kerry did better then Bush, by not by a ton, because I felt even though Kerry had a good response to the $87 billion question Bush still scored points on him here. Bush wasn't able to make the flip-flop issue stick, and he seemed much more agitated and frustrated while Kerry seemed confident and secure. That part of the debate is exactly what I had expected. I was disappointed in the debates as very little new information was discussed... I think Nader put it best when he said, this debate only shows the predictability of the questions as he has heard almost all of these answers through the media in the past few months. As far as China pulling out of 6-party talks if we start to have bilateral talks with North Korea? I don't know the answer to this, but I can't see a reason why China would make that move if we informed them that we still need their help in diplomacy with NK.

Well, I felt Kerry "won" the "debate". In as much as you can "win" one of these things.

Kerry clarified many of his positions on Iraq and foreign policy. Bush only re-iterated his positions and basically offered nothing new while not doing a very good job at refuting Kerry's attacks.

We learned some things about Kerry...he thinks the way we went to war was inappropriate and he believes there must be a change of policy if we are to win it. He is much more interested in "global issues" such as the Kyoto treaty. He is adament about stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. An important side to this is his harsh critique of our hypocrisy with current plans to develop bunker busting nuclear warheads. To which, Bush did not have a rebuttle.

What did Bush show us? Honestly, I did not think much. He pretty much stayed the course, which will satisfy those already firmly voting for him. But there was not much for anyone looking to see a change or more insight in what is to come.

So there is my brief impression of the 1st debate. Kerry 1-0.

Thats the thing, Kerry has changed his mind so much, people weren't sure where he stood and so it was good for him to debate his differing opinions and hammer out what he is truelly going to do and so you saw that he has decided, for now, what he stands for. Bush hasn't waivered and so did you expect him to come out and debate himself? Did you expect him to come out and say. I am going to completely do something different and this and that. Im pretty sure Bush said, you change your strategy or tactics, but you stick to your objective.

I know this is a pretty biased discussion as a lot of people have already made there mind up on each canidate and are influenced in that direction, but did anybody think there was legitamacy when Kerry was saying that there was no coalition going into the war and no support. Bush replied about the countries that have been fighting along side of us and now there are over 60 countries in on the cause. Do you think it hurt Kerry at all to act as though the countries that sent soldiers and helped out didn't mean anything? Did that portion of debate send a bad taste out to the other countries that stood beside us?

Personally, I thought the bit about 'Poland' was ridiculus. Of course we appreciate the handful of troops from Poland. The point was that a greater coalition would have been beneficial. You can argue about the number of countries and such all day but it is fairly pointless. The fact is the US is handling the large percentage of economic and human costs to the war.

FadingCpt. I believe Kerry was saying something to the effect that he would have never went into war. He would have continued the diplomatic talks and continue with the UN sanctions.

Do you think more sanctions would have worked? Bush said that Saddam would have grown more powerful and Kerry said that more sanctions would have weakened Saddam. What are your thoughts on that?

Personally, I thought Kerry made a good point when he was talking about not having enough troops chasing down Osama Bin Laden. At the same time though, it seems like the War was about Weapons of Mass Destruction, Dethroning a Tyrant, and the worries of connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda(sp). It seemed like Kerry was trying to say the War was pointless, but there was a point. Saddam was seen as a bigger threat at the time because of numerous things. It was just all happening at the same time. With the increase of terrorism around Sept 11, the terror threat became greater and I believe Saddam was seen as having connections to the terror. That with the fact he wasn't cooperating with Sanctions, his genocide record in the past, and the suspicion of hidden WMD.

Please criticize if I am wrong in my evaluation.

I know this is a pretty biased discussion as a lot of people have already made there mind up on each canidate and are influenced in that direction, but did anybody think there was legitamacy when Kerry was saying that there was no coalition going into the war and no support. Bush replied about the countries that have been fighting along side of us and now there are over 60 countries in on the cause. Do you think it hurt Kerry at all to act as though the countries that sent soldiers and helped out didn't mean anything? Did that portion of debate send a bad taste out to the other countries that stood beside us?[/QUOTE]

The British stand beside you and what an error that was.There is quite a bit of "bring the troops home" sentiment here now especially after the WMD fiasco.
I think events have proved Germany, France etc were right to not get involved with this mess.

After last night’s debate, I still hate Bush (that’s right, HATE) but I do believe that he was more sincere than Kerry. In other words, bush was less political. He looked like he really did believe he did what was best for the country…. “we must stay on the offensive” .. He is a misguided, incompetent fool who speaks from the heart but so what? So are most ruthless dictators. The real question is: How the F%^K did this man become leader of the free world? Where are all the great men and women?

I’m really, more than ever, disappointed in Americans. A quarter of a billion people and this is the best you can come up with?

Bush proved that he nothing more then an automaton that he gets ques from Rove, and simply repeats them over and over again. This we must remember is supposed to be Bush’s strong suit, foreign policy is supposed to be Bush’s issue. But Bush’s inability to state a point in reality or without looking nervous or lost was enough to make competent Kerry win. This is really bad news for Bush because the next two debates are Kerry’s strong suits. A town forum debate and worse…a domestic policy debate where Kerry will easily slam Bush. If Kerry can prove to the American people that he is indeed a strong candidate, more intelligent, more compotent, and more respected abroad there is a real chance he can win. The difference btwn Bush and Kerry is the difference btwn modern conservatives and liberals, conservatives believe, liberals know.

A true leader for the times would clearly identify the challenges before the nation, without treating the citizenry like sheltered children. A fitting leader can exude optimism for the future even while addressing our darkest imminent challenges. Kerry is not a leader for our times. America's present political culture may be tragically incapable of raising up a leader who can be honest with us about what we must do. So the strongest impression i am left with from this debate is one of sadness.
In recognizing the denial America faces today with regards to its image in the world and current challenges, I do not know what else you expect. I certainly did not envision him coming out and telling the American people they are stupid for having allowed fear to limit rationality; I did not expect Kerry to come and say that victory cannot be had if America leads or is the major part in Iraq; I did not expect Kerry to come out and say that America is being goverened by ideology and not practically. I did not expect Kerry to come out and commit political suicide. Sure I am all for honesty and the like in politics, but really it is all idealized nonsense. The typical citizen is by definition, average. The typical citizen is unable to comprehend every nuance, so whilst I've been sad and filled with comtempt at plolitics in this nation, the debate did nothing to affect this sadness. Kerry treats the citinzery as "sheltered children" precisely because it is what they are.

It's funny when I read people who state that Bush was sincere. That he was less obscure. No he was not! It has been his debating style his he achieved success in politics. It is a debating style that stems from the realization that he lacks the ability to articulate his stances his stances in a more formal manner. He dumbs up to the audience because he has no choice. He provides succint one liners amd repeats what he says because not only does he know his all limitations, he is aware of how to incite his base who responds to his dumbed down approach. Thus, dod not let the appearance of sincerity fool you into believe that Bush was in fact sincere.

With regards to the question "who won the debate?", I answer that there was no winner to be had because winning in this instance is not quantifiable and differs by person and value. Superficial judgements of appearance, confidence and affability are as important, if not more, than the actual substance. Clearly those who actually cared to hear what was being said had already heard the same silly rhetoric over and over again from each candidate and thus, what was actually said shouldn't have been suprising. Those voters who were unaware as to the positions of either candidate regarding their stances of Iraq are likely to not care about what is being or did not watch the debate. Therefore, for those who did watch and are/were uneducated about the views of either candidate and are unable to steer through spin and shallowness presented as substance, appearance becomes everything. You win if you look like you are winning, and you lose if you look like you are losing. Secondly, the spin and coverage following the debate actually has much more influence than the debate itself as it will one, make up the minds of those who watched the debate and still needed outside guide as to which decision to reach, and most importantly those who did not watch. Thus, on appearances, Kerry had the upper hand. On what was said, each candidate was a fucking politician.

Well in reality debates are won by pundits not by candidates.

Quigly,
"Do you think more sanctions would have worked? Bush said that Saddam would have grown more powerful and Kerry said that more sanctions would have weakened Saddam. What are your thoughts on that?"

It is obvious that Saddam had been weakened tremendously. There is no reason to think that this trend would have been reversed. Of course he would have only gotten weaker and weaker. He was in no position to attack anyone. Any basis you can come up with to counter this has been refuted upon the occupation of Iraq.

So basically what you have is a misconception held by a large percentage of the world. A misconception that says Saddam is dangerous to the US. This misconception is due to massive errors in intelligence gathering. The person who accepted this intelligence and acted on it as fact is also responsible.

So, your evaluation isn't wrong but needs a further assessment. Namely, the reasons we went to war in Iraq have been discredited. Therefore, going to war when we did was a mistake.

Did anybody catch when Bush commented that the military is voluntary and will continue to be on his watch.

Does anybody know what Kerry's stance is on Drafts?

Does anybody know what Kerry's stance is on Drafts?

Obviously he doesn't want it.

I am tired, please give examples.

Well, one of the reasons Bush fared so poorly is that he continued to drive home his point about Kerry's record on Iraq. Kerry stood firmly; every shot Bush took he was ready for, and the American people did actually get some substance from Kerry last night: he is correct that if you evaluate his position based on the record (and not the media compression for an easy headline) you'll find that George W. Bush is stating the case improperly, insistently, and despite history. Kerry has been fairly consistent on Iraq; those who "couldn't tell the difference" between Bush's and Kerry's Iraq policies, who needed last night as a clarification, (A) weren't paying attention beyond the headlines and sound-bites throughout this cycle and leading up to last night's recital, and (B) should have a better view at this time, unless of course, they still aren't paying attention.

For Bush to paint Kerry as no different, or as confusing, or as sending mixed messages is to expect the voters to indulge only the most superficial of discussions on this or any matter.

I find it amazing that everyone takes the "flip flop" propaganda to heart. Everyone is like "Kerry took a real stance on something" he had that stance the whole time; you all have just been fed this lie by the GOP! But since it makes the news you associate it with Kerry. I mean what do you use as an example, Kerry voting for higher gas tax and then against it? He has been in congress 20 years there is probably a gas tax bill about every year. Would you rather gas cost $300/gal because it always got voted on in the same way? A different circumstance will require a different decision. that is the quality I want out of a leader.

Anyway, I find it frightening that bush says stuff like "we can’t let bin laden effect our foreign policy." what if JFK had gone ahead and invaded Cuba no matter what the Russians said? Personally I am glad JFK didn’t commit our two countries to mutually assured destruction. one must adjust one's foreign policy depending on what one's enemies do. If not my parents would have probably died a fiery nuclear death. If your enemy holds out a spear would you rush upon its blade? Or take a different path? Bush seems to think rushing upon the blade it the best idea.

Actually Bush flip-flopped on many things, so I don't see why Kerry doing it is such a issue. Just for starters like how Bush said Nation-building was a bad idea before he was elected, then know he says he liberated Iraq to free the people and give them democracy!

On what was said, each candidate was a fucking politician.

LOL!!! No Doubt. ;)

Kerry promises much, but does not present the detail to achieve these promises, another note, to make homeland security stronger, means to me more police power, less rights for us. It's bad enough that the "patriot acts" were typed and ready to be delivered before 9-11. :mad:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207

As one example, they cited the expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In the past, this legislation allowed the federal government to conduct surveillance on suspected foreign agents without their knowledge. To do so, federal officials had first to apply for a warrant with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court * which conducts business in secret * demonstrating that the surveillance was required exclusively for foreign intelligence-gathering.

Now, however, foreign intelligence need be only one reason for seeking a warrant. At the same time, the Patriot Act also removes the wall that stood between efforts aimed at foreign intelligence and those aimed at domestic crime-fighting. http://www.lwvlamv.org/citzed_civrights_press.html

Who can we trust?. Our nation seems to be heading for big problems of "inner fear" our rights are being striped at an alarming rate, and these two pundits for the sake of "security" will intensify the police powers.
:rolleyes:

Godless.

Let me understand this here: why is that all the people that think Bush the winner (be it hard cores like vlad that would probably say shit smells good if it came out of bush) use logical arguments based off what was said in the debates to prove Kerry the loser, when everyone else says how Kerry won by looking much better then Bush, by being on the offensive and other superficial reasoning?

I'm not a Republican man, and I don't even really like Bush. I'll take a republican over a democrat any day of the week though.

Fair enough but your were accusing of Godless of not being a registered republican because of is personal analysis that Kerry won the debate. Republican are not mindless drones that think Bush is perfect in every way and if anyone of them disagrees they must not be republican.

Fair enough but your were accusing of Godless of not being a registered republican because of is personal analysis that Kerry won the debate. Republican are not mindless drones that think Bush is perfect in every way and if anyone of them disagrees they must not be republican.


No but his views were of the very hostile anti-bush variety. I cannot gather much about his outlook that seems to correlate with anything Republican, Bush or otherwise. Thus I doubted that he was a real republican and thought he was probably just pretending to be one to give the illusion that even Bush’s own party hates him. But I don't know him personally, so I can judge for sure. Still, he sounds like a typical Liberal. I don't know why he doesn't stop worrying about what Bush is doing and just vote democrat or for Nader.

There are also many republicans that are anti-bush. If you want to question how liberal Godless is ask him in private of make a thread about him.

What I would like to know is whether those who think Bush won have any care for history?

I would disagree that Bush did better than Kerry, but I know some would still think so. However, even if I imagine that Bush gave a stellar performance, it doesn't change the deceptive premises (after all, it's "hate" if you call a lie a lie) upon which Bush's argument is built, and upon which GOP anti-Kerryism depends entirely.

Al Gore's sighs, while they are certainly more decent than addressing Mr. Bush according to his integrity, nonetheless counted against the former Vice-President. Bush's fidgeting, his smoldering temper, and even that bit when he wagged a finger as if saying, "Teacher! call on me, please!" all belied the coolness and consistency we are expected to imagine of the current President of the United States. And then to compound that puppy-like anxiety with that amazingly blank expression and six or seven seconds of silence as the clock ticks ... let me guess--it all works to Bush's favor?

So while I might disagree with the notion that Bush had the better performance, I would like one of the people who do believe that notion to please explain to me whether it's style or integrity they want. Wasn't it the Chevy Corvair that many found stylish save for the occasional dropping of an engine block?

I am republican; the problem is that "republicans" are not republican. I want smaller government, fiscal conservatism, and freedom to own guns/double bladed knives. However the bush white house is not what I would call fiscally conservative or into smaller government.(biggest government in the history of teh world)

One of the hysterical parts of the debate– Bush hears Kerry say something and Bush's face just lights up. Bush jumps in, "I'm being clever" written all over the man's face. In his thirty second retort, Bush reiterates slightly irrelevant, flawed and contorted GOP lies. You could just see the gears click and whir between those monstruous ears, and this strained the poor man so much, his grammar suffered.

Example: Kerry says as president, he would have approached Iraq more diplomatically, and Bush essentially countered with this:
Do you think more sanctions would have worked? Bush said that Saddam would have grown more powerful and Kerry said that more sanctions would have weakened Saddam. What are your thoughts on that?
(That's quoted from a republican on this thread)

The funny part was, THERE WERE NO WEPAONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. THERE WERE NO FACILITIES WITH VATS OF SUSPICIOUS DEATH CHEMICALS. THERE WERE NO BALLISTIC MISSILES CAPABALE OF DELIVERING NON-EXISTENT NUCLEAR PAYLOADS TO AMERIQUE!

The sanctions were working– all evidence points to this. Actually, the entire lack of evidence of anything more dangerous than an RPG is evidence enough. If WMDs don't exist, it means they don't exist. Despite Saddam's continued attempt to procure WMD materials, he had none. (well, there were some aluminum tubes, a slingshot and a medicine plant). Saddam lacked the ability to hurt anyone except his closest neighbors. America is about as far from Iraq as you can get.
Saddam posed no threat, and never posed a great enough threat to invade. Bush's invasion was unjustified. Human right's are never reason enough to intervene; I remember when the republicans ripped into Clinton for military action in the Balkans, and we didn't lose a single American there.

I am republican; the problem is that "republicans" are not republican. I want smaller government, fiscal conservatism, and freedom to own guns/double bladed knives. However the bush white house is not what I would call fiscally conservative or into smaller government.(biggest government in the history of teh world)


You are very right, and articulate exactly why I don't like Bush; he's not a Conservative, he's a Republican. To your list of things wrong with Bush also add that he is an immigration Liberal.

But that other guy said he was a 'republican for Kerry'. To me, a bad Republican is still better than a democrat.

I thought Bush was a Neonaz/eer I mean Neocon? :D

To me, a bad Republican is still better than a democrat.[

That appearance is merely the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. After all, when a Democrat employs the tricks of the political trade, it is considered undignified and dishonest. In the meantime, a lying Republican is what one learns to expect. Thus, Democrats fail to meet people's expectations more often than Republicans.

What strikes me as absolutely bizarre are the gutter values that lead people to prefer such superficiality in the first place. Did a Democrat stop to think, and change his mind? It must be a flip-flop for poitical convenience. Did a Republican lie to you? Well, he looked and sounded good while he did, and that's preferable to a Democrat any day of the week, isn't it?

Seriously--unless you're already white and rich, the appeal of the GOP is a falsehood; when they're done with you, you'll be flushed aside. Best thing you can hope for in that case is to be gassy, so they have to flush two or three times before drowning you.

I thought Bush was a Neonaz/eer I mean Neocon? :D


Yeah, Bush is a Nazi, America is a fascist state, and corporations dictate public policy. haven't you been listening to the Liberals? ;) :D

I would not say most Liberals preach such a slippery slop. Neocons though are a rather despicable breed of creature. Neonazi no, the only thing Neocons have in common with neonazis is the “neo”.

That appearance is merely the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. After all, when a Democrat employs the tricks of the political trade, it is considered undignified and dishonest. In the meantime, a lying Republican is what one learns to expect. Thus, Democrats fail to meet people's expectations more often than Republicans.

What strikes me as absolutely bizarre are the gutter values that lead people to prefer such superficiality in the first place. Did a Democrat stop to think, and change his mind? It must be a flip-flop for poitical convenience. Did a Republican lie to you? Well, he looked and sounded good while he did, and that's preferable to a Democrat any day of the week, isn't it?

Seriously--unless you're already white and rich, the appeal of the GOP is a falsehood; when they're done with you, you'll be flushed aside. Best thing you can hope for in that case is to be gassy, so they have to flush two or three times before drowning you.

My expectation are not Lowered, if I had my way there would be major reforms. But at the end of the day you have to vote for someone, and if I were in America I would be voting for the Republicans.

I don't like the collectivist ethics of the democrats - the welfare state, affirmative action, progressive taxes..any move in that direction is a bad one, imo.

I would not say most Liberals preach such a slippery slop. Neocons though are a rather despicable breed of creature though. Neonazi, no the only thing Neocons have in common with neonazis is the “neo”.

Have you ever read anything by an intelligent 'neocon' though? Don't be misled by the very misleading characterizations of neo-cons put forth by neo-socialists (liberals).

the welfare state, affirmative action, progressive taxes..any move in that direction is a bad one, imo.

Yes, the whole world should be as simple as your vision. Come on over to America, man. You'd make a great American with that crappy attitude.

Tell me, then, if the collective is so repugnant, what is the point of civilized society?

Vlad,

Yes I have vlad and that what scares me about them.

Without welfare, laws restraining corporate greed, and progressive taxes, we'd still be stuck in coal mines and dangerous assembly jobs, overlorded by Robber Barons. If the liberals had not have had their ways, we would be
a fascist state, and corporations dictate public policy.

Vlad,

Yes I have vlad and that what scares me about them.

Who have you read?

Yes, the whole world should be as simple as your vision. Come on over to America, man. You'd make a great American with that crappy attitude.

Tell me, then, if the collective is so repugnant, what is the point of civilized society?


I don't really know what the meaning off this question is. The collective is not repugnent, but collectivism surely is. I like Nietzschean individualism, not some society built on life-hating PC ethics like relentless egalitarianism.

I thought this thread was about the debate?

I don't really know what the meaning off this question is. The collective is not repugnent, but collectivism surely is. I like Nietzschean individualism, not some society built on life-hating PC ethics like relentless egalitarianism.

You have a twisted vision of both collectivism and egalitarianism.

Which world would you prefer: A world in which you can pursue your dreams, or a world in which your dreams are defined by the need to cut your neighbor's throat?

And what, aside from paving the ground to keep the blood off the flowers, separates that condition from the animal aspects of the human condition that we seek to overcome?

Think about it this way: If we agree to sit down and play chess, why would I swing a golf club at your head?

We humans generally agree on the notion of civilized society. What's the point of agreeing on those rules if we're just going to swing golf clubs at one another's heads? Of course, perhaps swinging golf clubs is better than swinging sticks and branches. Hell, we could ask the Scottish, I suppose, but more to the point is that civilized society aspires to something higher than handing out the golf clubs for smacking one another with.

If civilized society is merely a transplanted version of the law of the jungle, why are we humans so cowardly that we refuse to play it for real?

To start with the presumption of "I" bears no obligations to "we", and becomes rather fixated on "they". To start with the presumption of "we" inherently includes "I", and seeks to assuage the conditions that would give any "them" cause to make it about "us and them".

Us, and them
And after all we’re only ordinary men.
Me, and you.
God only knows it’s noz what we would choose to do.
Forward he cried from the rear
And the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side.
Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who.
Up and down.
But in the end it’s only round and round.
Haven’t you heard it’s a battle of words
The poster bearer cried.
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There’s room for you inside.

(Pink Floyd (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pink-floyd/108709.html))

In the end, it's whether you wish to sleep with one eye open because of your neighbor, or if nature itself is enough to contend with. The industrialized first-world, especially: all these wars are our choice. We choose the conditions that motivate them; we choose no foresight; we choose to play Pilate and send the troops when the time for talking is done. And this is because of the tendency to start with "I" or at least a "we" that is not complete and total. Those who wish to stand outside the circle are welcome to do so, but it's only the idea that might is right and therefore violence is necessary that makes us think we have the right to kick anyone off the island.

Between "I" and "we" are perhaps the clearest degrees of separation, the widest gap between the two candidates. And sometimes, because of how clear the air is, and how broad the gap is, people tend to look right through it and forget it's there. The United States says, "Me," the world community says, "We," and the United States responds, "You're with Them".

Individualists choose collectivism in both ignorance and wisdom. Unable to understand, for instance, family bonds, many individualists hold with their families through thick and thin. But it's much easier to break a more distant human bond if you don't have to look people in the eye and tell them the truth: you can simply stop trying.

Americans have a choice coming up, and even I don't think it necessarily the best choice either way, but these candidates are the choices we have chosen to choose between. (Even Noam Chomsky acknowledges that inherently in his quiet endorsement of Senator John Kerry.)

And the difference between "I" and "we" is all the difference in the world.

I thought this thread was about the debate?
ture.

I thought Kerry should have really slammed bush when he said in response to a question about Iraq "they attacked us". I would have taken the kid gloves off right about then and ripped GW a new one.

Also bush got more of the 30-second rebuttal things than Kerry did (I know they both get 30 seconds, but there were more when it would benefit bush more than Kerry.) I was like “dam bushy, want some cheese with that whine” =]

Furthermore, what did bush say? I don’t even remember, did he give any clues as to his policies or just “………….Kerry flip-flops……….”<---(that seemed to be his response to everything)

You have a twisted vision of both collectivism and egalitarianism.

Which world would you prefer: A world in which you can pursue your dreams, or a world in which your dreams are defined by the need to cut your neighbor's throat?

And what, aside from paving the ground to keep the blood off the flowers, separates that condition from the animal aspects of the human condition that we seek to overcome?

Think about it this way: If we agree to sit down and play chess, why would I swing a golf club at your head?

We humans generally agree on the notion of civilized society. What's the point of agreeing on those rules if we're just going to swing golf clubs at one another's heads? Of course, perhaps swinging golf clubs is better than swinging sticks and branches. Hell, we could ask the Scottish, I suppose, but more to the point is that civilized society aspires to something higher than handing out the golf clubs for smacking one another with.

If civilized society is merely a transplanted version of the law of the jungle, why are we humans so cowardly that we refuse to play it for real?

To start with the presumption of "I" bears no obligations to "we", and becomes rather fixated on "they". To start with the presumption of "we" inherently includes "I", and seeks to assuage the conditions that would give any "them" cause to make it about "us and them".

Us, and them
And after all we’re only ordinary men.
Me, and you.
God only knows it’s noz what we would choose to do.
Forward he cried from the rear
And the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side.
Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who.
Up and down.
But in the end it’s only round and round.
Haven’t you heard it’s a battle of words
The poster bearer cried.
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There’s room for you inside.

(Pink Floyd (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pink-floyd/108709.html))

In the end, it's whether you wish to sleep with one eye open because of your neighbor, or if nature itself is enough to contend with. The industrialized first-world, especially: all these wars are our choice. We choose the conditions that motivate them; we choose no foresight; we choose to play Pilate and send the troops when the time for talking is done. And this is because of the tendency to start with "I" or at least a "we" that is not complete and total. Those who wish to stand outside the circle are welcome to do so, but it's only the idea that might is right and therefore violence is necessary that makes us think we have the right to kick anyone off the island.

Between "I" and "we" is perhaps the clearest degrees of separation, the widest gap between the two candidates. And sometimes, because of how clear the air is, and how broad the gap is, people tend to look right through it and forget it's there. The United States says, "Me," the world community says, "We," and the United States responds, "You're with Them".

Individualists choose collectivism in both ignorance and wisdom. Unable to understand, for instance, family bonds, many individualists hold with their families through thick and thin. But it's much easier to break a more distant human bond if you don't have to look people in the eye and tell them the truth: you can simply stop trying.

Americans have a choice coming up, and even I don't think it necessarily the best choice either way, but these candidates are the choices we have chosen to choose between. (Even Noam Chomsky acknowledges that inherently in his quiet endorsement of Senator John Kerry.)

And the difference between "I" and "we" is all the difference in the world.


I don't want to swing golf clubs at anyones head, or anyone to swing them at mine. I support a forcefull government to punish those who interfere with others. What I don't support is the redistribution of success from those who have it to those who don't. I want a society that nurtures leaders and innovaters not one that restrictes them in order to carry the weak. The Libertarians are right in all but one sense; ultra freedom without a a siseable government wont work because people will fight with each other too much and society will break down. Total freedom to live, succeed, or fail is how it should be, but there also needs to be a presence to prevent mans hostile instincts from taking over. I find the PC doctrines dominating today’s pop-intelligentsia to be repugnant, yes. You are blind if you don't see that there is something very sick about the inability citizens in Western societies (yes only western societies, and they are anomoulous in this regard) to make rational evaluative judgments about things without violating some set of prudish sensibilities. The Tyranny of leftism over the masses of Western society such a destructive and ignoble force… totally unnatural and it’s about to backfire in a massive way.

I don't want to swing golf clubs at anyones head, or anyone to swing them at mine. I support a forcefull government to punish those who interfere with others. What I don't support is the redistribution of success from those who have it to those who don't.

If you don't want to swing golf clubs at anyone's head, then perhaps you'd best reconsider your position on the collective.

What constitutes "interference with others"?

What of those who do not have an equal opportunity to succeed?

Didn't think about those things, did you? Of course, as an individualist, what reason do you have to care?


I thought this thread was about the debate?

It was and is. If you'll notice, this digression has to do with Vlad's assertion that the debates don't matter and that courtesy to others in the world is evil. Which is the reason he thinks Bush did well in the debate: because Republicans can do no wrong.

Once we dispense with that wasteful, distracting, offensive, propagandous notion, well, then I am happy to move along. In the meantime, even though he's not an American, I'm also happy to consider his notions insofar as there are folks in this country who are simple enough to believe the same kind of crap. And in order to protect this society from sinking into the gutter, we need to address such backwater simplicity. It's always good for the numbers to appeal to the lowest common denominator, but that means your ranks are swollen by the least-educated. Look at what it's done to religion; the political arena ... well, it's not so far behind. Republicans, like Catholic priests, like to hurt children. Republicans, like televangelists, dream of a homogenous society. Republicans, like trailer-park revivals, hold their morals as superior in the face of factual evidence to the contrary.

And hey, if "Bush won the debate" simply because he's a Republican? Well, that says much about the judge keeping the scorecard. It is for this reason that his responses stray farther and farther from the debate.

I am republican; the problem is that "republicans" are not republican. I want smaller government, fiscal conservatism, and freedom to own guns/double bladed knives. However the bush white house is not what I would call fiscally conservative or into smaller government.(biggest government in the history of teh world)

There you go, eight years of the slyboy Bill and government grows, comes in a bit of hope of conservatism and it just continues to grow, and after 9-11 it took the worst turn of all time. Government has grown beyond what will be a free state, fear will rule, I see the early begining of the end.

After 9-11 for some reason I got into conspiracy theorist websites, and o! what was conspiracy has now become reality!!.

Choosing a leader now a days has become like picking the less of the two evils. This time around I believe the less evil would be Kerry. ;)

I liked Bush in 2000 and I would have voted for him, for one i'm hispanic so to have a president that can actually relate to our language was beneficial, and also a good alie to our compadres south of the border. Mind you these were not the only reasons, I noticed Vlad seems to not even looked at the link Rhetoric & Reality so he can have a look for himself what Bush said and what he actually did..here have a look!! (http://www.geocities.com/reconsideringiraq/rhetoric.html)

Godless.

Roads, schools, national defense, much medical research . . . much more. All funded with tax dollars. How is this different from the "redistribution of success from those who have it to those who don't"? I mean, should be paying by yourself for all those things otherwise? Before you made your fortune you in no way benefited from any of those things right?

What of those who do not have an equal opportunity to succeed?

Everybody can succeed, as evidenced by the many people who rise from nothing all the time. And many people why are handed privileges their whole life end up colossal failures.

I'm alsohappy to consider his notions insofar as there are folks in this country who are simple enough to believe the same kind of crap. .

Yeah, the Libertarians. Their support is growing and growing, you should watch out.

Roads, schools, national defense, much medical research . . . much more. All funded with tax dollars. How is this different from the "redistribution of success from those who have it to those who don't"?

Well that's not channeling money straight into a fund for the botched, its going into causes that are for the betterment of society as a whole. There's a big difference.

Actually to succeed you have to be in the right place at the right time, with the right skills and the right connections, fact of the matter is that very few can succeed, and if everyone did succeed who would be left to do any work?

Everybody can succeed, as evidenced by the many people who rise from nothing all the time. And many people why are handed privileges their whole life end up colossal failures.

You ducked the question, though that's hardly surprising. However, I do wonder why you bothered addressing it in the first place since you had no answer.

We are obliged in this country to present equal opportunity. We only achieve that notion in the most superficial manners, if at all. It's a bit like looking at two people, one a pro athlete in the prime of his career and the other a terminal cancer patient mere hours from his ferry ride, and calling them "equal" because, hey, they're both alive.


Yeah, the Libertarians. Their support is growing and growing, you should watch out.

So why are you supporting Republicans, if you believe in Libertarians? Is it because Bush's big government, intrusions on liberty, and contempt for individuals matches your beliefs?

*What I don't support is the redistribution of success from those who have it to those who don't.

If you had paid a tiny bit of more attention you would have realised that I have under my avatar "objectivist mind".

See I don't agree with the distribution of wealth either, nor do I support the notion of a welfare state, but when push comes to shove, and we get royally Fucked!! by non-sense such as patriot acts, bigger government, intimidation by media of other terrorists threads, and the like, only to keep us in fear. That's BS.

If there were really a true attack of porpotion by terrorists in this country we would have had lots more attacks then what 9-11 was, this smells so much like "inside job". Plus there was plenty of warnings that whent unheeded. http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html

Godless.

We must also remember, good Godless, that our man Vlad considers logic prudish:


You are blind if you don't see that there is something very sick about the inability citizens in Western societies (yes only western societies, and they are anomoulous in this regard) to make rational evaluative judgments about things without violating some set of prudish sensibilities.

Although, had I a capitalist pyramid scheme in my pocket, I'd probably love Vlad for the amount of fleece I could get out of him.

*Actually to succeed you have to be in the right place at the right time, with the right skills and the right connections, fact of the matter is that very few can succeed, and if everyone did succeed who would be left to do any work?

That's not entirely true WCF, To succeed one has to be determined, look for opportunities, save to invest, in sound opportunities and not be a fuck up. The general public waists there money in crap that they can hardly afford, over extend themselves in dept, and undervalue a good education. That is why many don't succeed.

Godless.

You can be as determined as you want but if you don't get any opportunities your fucked. true most don't succeed because of laziness and ineptitude, but some also don’t succeed cause they get fuck.

I might remind that if consumers stop spending themselves into debt, the American economy goes south. Saving your money is long-recognized as a bad investment for the general economy.

Equity spares me the defeatist curse of your collective miseries.

Those who can't perform emphatically whine.

The debate was basically a tie. Kerry was, I admit, superior in his presentation. While I disagreed with most of what he said, he said it well. Bush, on the other hand, said the right things (IMHO), but not as well as he should have. Through much of the debate, he seemed distracted. He also didn't attack Kerry or his horrible record on defense enough (no mention of Kerry's voting record in the Senate). Bush "played it safe" and just tried to hold his own and avoid any embarassing gaffes. Since Bush has the lead, he must have felt this was all he needed to do. Basically the equivalent of "running out the clock". I believe this is unfortunate, if he had trounced Kerry, the election would have basically been over. Instead, things pretty much stayed as they were. No major gaffes by either party, no clear winner. Since Bush was ahead going in, he wins. He accomplished what he wanted to accomplish. Still, Kerry certainly didn't hurt himself, which surprised me a bit.

So why are you supporting Republicans, if you believe in Libertarians? Is it because Bush's big government, intrusions on liberty, and contempt for individuals matches your beliefs?

I'm not supporting Republicans. I don't even live in America. I would probably support Libertarians over Republicans, but I would take either of them over the Democrats.

You can be as determined as you want but if you don't get any opportunities your fucked. true most don't succeed because of laziness and ineptitude, but some also don’t succeed cause they get fuck.

People have opportunities. If you have skills, people will pay for them and $ is all you need. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth, and I did just fine. I have hardey met a homeless/hungary/down-trodden individual that I thought didn't have themselves to blame.

"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN"

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where