The 3rd debate is about over now, that’s the last of them. I wonder if the debates had any effect on your opinions? Do you think the debates have changed the polls and the eventual election results?

They would have had to actually talk instead of just speaking.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41521

is it just me or is bob Schiefer a shi**y moderator?

I mean what kind of last question is "what did you learn from your wife?" that has nothing to do with being a president.

I missed the debate. Transcripts anyone?

Who won? Why?

Wow, would have made sense to close this thread and keep the one open which was already discussing it....

Persol,

that thread was about who will win the debate. Now that the debate is over its who won the debate.

Bush won. Not a landslide but he definately had the edge IMO.

Bush continues to be an idiot.
I wish they would debate for real.
Crap questions mostly.
Do you believe how many times Bush regurgitated his failed no child left behind answer?
3 times! His shit education 'reform' is the answer to outsourcing, minimum wage, and shows us how much of a uniter not a divider he is. I can't believe this guy is president.

cato- That wife question blew

CNN doesn't have the who won poll(wonder why) MSNBC has Kerry over 60 pts. with 92,000 votes. All the on-line polls I've seen (been watching throughout the debates) has Kerry far ahead.

The media continues to spin fair and balanced as if Bush isn't a moron. The rightwingers have invariably had to put words into Bushes mouth and interperate his meaning for him.

I thought Kerry won on several counts. Of course these impressions are highly subjective, because I'm previously convinced that President Bush is a mentally-challenged and dangerous leader, and that Kerry is just a typical (but far more intelligent) Washington stuffed-shirt.

Stability. The President was noticeably "keyed up" at the outset, as if running on adrenaline (or something). He displayed inappropriate laughter, overly loud speech, odd gesticulation, and general antsiness, then rapidly calmed down in about the last third. There have been noticeable changes in the President's delivery, even between these 3 debates. Tonight Bush's change in emotional state was considerable. Kerry kept an even keel.

Sincerity. The President's affectations of gesture, posture and humor were just unnatural. Kerry obviously didn't have to cram so for these public speaking tests.

Integrity. Kerry attacked Bush on the issues (legitimate) while Bush attacked obliquely, and with smears. Ted Kennedy was the President's favorite object to hurl repeatedly despite the persistent lack of a context to do so. Kerry spoke with more emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which I expect Americans are beginning to react to. Like the situation in Iraq, an excruciatingly slow tipping point is occuring, where Americans are doubting what the Bush Administration has been telling us.

These debates were far better than I had expected, and this last one was a marvelous contrast between the candidates. It was a significant event.

Kerry won by a clear margin. I"ll expand later

I think Bush got bruised. He didn't start well, and apparently the scuttlebutt is that Kerry did quote him accurately about Osama bin Laden. Bush did well on the softer questions, the more personal ones where the sound-bites had fewer syllables of the evening.

He did turn sort of red when Kerry mentioned Cheney's daughter; I wonder what that's all about. I'm officially disappointed that neither Kerry nor Edwards will look at the marriage issue from the obvious and looming Fourteenth Amendment aspect: Kerry could have sent the President sputtering by demanding an explanation of why the banning of gay marriage is so important as to trash equal protection.

In the meantime, at the outset of the post-show discussion (which I have since abandoned), Andrea Mitchell, giving comment for Matthews on MSNBC, noted that the program director tried to equalize the heights of the two candidates, thus using a closer shot of Bush and filling his half of the screen. Now, I don't think it's that big a deal; Kerry had the more forgiving shot. But there's early talk that the framing was actually an "unfair advantage" to Bush. Whatever.

Bush did well, but gets no points on the soft bigotry of lowered expectations; his answers seemed less genuine--he doesn't seem to shift well between "stump" and "debate". GOP handlers can only smooth out the wrinkles to a certain impressive degree. The rest is on the candidates, and I think Kerry, substantially at least, had stronger thrust, quicker parry, and a certain sense of the delicate in his attempts to skewer Bush. While the president came across as less of a hack--or, perhaps, as less of a wild slasher--than usual, he still seemed clumsy on his feet and surprised by the unwieldy nature of domestic issues.

My early impression is that Kerry did the job; how resoundingly he won the debate is a separate question. I've apparently overestimated the efficacy of the Bush/Cheney campaign; I don't think Bush did particularly poorly in the second debate, and my early impressions of the vice presidential debate was that Cheney had shredded the upstart.

I already know I'm at odds with early attempts to judge the debate, not so much in the suggestion of the outcome but on various points chosen for reflection and later analysis.

If things go according to pattern, then Kerry will be deemed the winner, and the outcome will have more significance than we might at present guess;.

Bushes comments on homosexuals seem to me to be nothing but worthless policing. It's important not to seem to right leaning in this issue, especially so close to the election. He spoke of tolerance while withholding rights (if a paradigm can really be formed out of that seemingly contradictory idea) but the actions of his administration, and indeed his party speak volumes over the sugar coated half-truths he gave as his answer tonight.

The truth is that homosexuals don't have any place in the republican party; They don't want them, and just being gay apparently makes them incomparable with the RNC. Take a look at what the RNC has been saying to the Log Cabin Republicans. They won't throw those poor confused people a bone, they've been entirely squeezed out and shunned. That's what this new Republican party, run by right wing Christian nut-jobs wants for America. Gays don't fit into the Neocon vision of this nation.

Well I think clearly that Kerry won this and all the debates, bush has been beaten cause he has a heavy burden on his hand!!.

http://www.cagle.com/news/FinalDebate/images/harville.gif

Now if they have Osama on ice and ready to "pop-out" before nov.2nd he might just swing to win the presidency again.

Godless.

Debates were so much better when Ross Perot was included.

I was surprised. I thought tonight would be Bush's night, but Kerry was prepared and from the start it was obvious that Bush was acting a little strangely and wasn't very effective. He cleaned up at the end, making the debate more of a tie really, but if I had to choose a winner, my pick would be Kerry.

He did turn sort of red when Kerry mentioned Cheney's daughter

I think this is based on the fact that Bush's Fundie base may grow a lot less enthusiastic if they had to face the fact that their saviorboy's VP had a gay daughter. Remember, to people like John Kerry, being gay is just something you are. To people like Bush, being gay is something you have to tolerate and gloss over. While Kerry does not mean it as some kind of insult, Bush may take it as one.

I thought Bush's stupidest moment was when he was asked about something regarding the economy. What was it? It might've been outsourcing, or the deficit. The moderator went through a checklist of possible factors, such as foreign markets, the Bush administration, 9/11, etc. Then Bush said, "Gosh, I hope it's not the administration!" Nobody in the audience laughed, and it was simply a very inappropriate and ignorant remark for a president to make.

UN Secretary-General: "Mr. President, who is to blame for the current crisis in Iraq?"
George. W. Bush: "Gosh, I hope it's not my administration!"

Even if this debate resulted in a draw (which it wasn't, as CNN-Gallup reported that a selected audience voted Kerry as the winner by 52-39 percent), Kerry still comes out ahead because of the first debate debacle by Bush. After that, Bush needed an even bigger KO against Kerry to gain an equal ground on the debate issue, but like Mr. Yale Debating Champion would've allowed that. Kerry's campaign can now legitimately say they are 3 for 3 in debates against the president, and their supporters will be on a morale high which will sustain them for at least a week or so.

Come on guys. Bush obviously won this one. I'll admit Bush sucked on the first debate, but the second was a tie, and this one went to Bush. Contrary to what some others have said, I felt that Kerry looked uncomfortable and stumbled with his words a bit in this debate. He also had a hard time defending his Senate record. Rather ironic that each candidate lost on his "home turf".

It was only natural for Kerry to win this one. Bush's domestic policy record leaves quite a lot to be desired. A bit too much pandering to the far religious right, in attacking homosexuals, and standing in the way of stem cell research. Flip flopping on gun rights (says to the NRA that he doesn't support the Assault weapon ban extension, but says to soccer moms that he DOES support an extension), underfunding our schools, destroying the environment, and snubbing minorities and civil rights. It’s a record worthy of even the darkest conservative overlords.

I am planning on watching the debate tomorrow.
Someone told me that Bush actually claimed that other countries are jeaolos of our HealthCare system! :bugeye: Did he really say that?!?! :eek:

:D

I think he meant Afghanistan.

I think he meant Afghanistan.
Maybe.
Hell even Iraq had National Healthcare under Saddam.

Just to set out my non-lunatic credentials, I would like to say that I put absolutly no stock in the rumors going around that Bush was wearing a wire in the 1st debate. However in the 3rd debate he appeared to definately be under the influence of some form of chemical stimulant. I noticed right away that he seemed super peppy, and the contrast was a lot bigger than being next to Kerry could account for. He spoke overly loud, he seemed to lunge over his podium as he spoke, he did his weird open handed podium slaping in a very frantic jerky way bringing his hand up way to high as he did it, and he fidgited. I am completely convinced he was on something, maybe just too much coffee but something had him... (dare I say) wired. His buzz seemed to wear off as the debate went on, but there was still the occasional outburst, and I cringed every time he did his odd podium slaping maunver.

I think Bush has had a stroke recently. See how his mouth slopes down on one side? Has it always been like that? The podium slapping was hilarious.

Kerry wasn't perfect. Went back to previous questions too much.

But he beat Bush again. Pretty badly. I can see thinking this was a draw if biased to Bush....but if you think Bush won then you didn't even need to watch the debate cause your mind was obviously made up.

Kerry easily won on style. He also slightly won on substance, though that depends on your viewpoint. I prefer someone to talk about plans for the next 4 years. Kerry talked about his. Bush said he'd keep doing whatever he has done.

Debates were so much better when Ross Perot was included

Yeah the debates are useless. Bush just lies and everyone thinks it’s the truth.
example: he said, "I never said that" (about saying that he didnt think about osama much) when he did say it. There is no doubt in my mind that he knew he said that. However, that was the only way to minimize how bad it looks, because most of the "swing" voters wont pull their head out of their own arse long enough to check the facts.

p.s. watch frontline tonight, and get firends, family, and any swing voter you know to watch it. pbs 10pm where I am.
click here for local listings (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/)

No Mad, Kerry yet again completely destroyed Bush, don't take my word for it:

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released shortly after the debate indicated that more who watched it gave Kerry the edge. Among the poll's 511 respondents, 53 percent said Kerry did better, and 39 percent said Bush did. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Bush doesn't know what he is talking about and he is the president of the US. Honestly now Kerry has been the superior cnadidate for a long while now, and I suspect that should Kerry keep up the volume he could win this election. Bush has lost a great deal of momentum. I remember watching CNN last night and Bill Hemmer was there with all those endecided Ohio voters, and 7 sadi they would vote for Bush, and 11 would vote for Kerry. All these people prior to the debate were undecided. I find it sad, that you would honeslty believe that Bush won. There is no question about it Kerry should have convinced the American people he is strong enough to take over from Bush. Also I think Kerry could have done better on his rebuttal to the “Global test” which the GOP tries to manipulate by taking it out of context from the time of statement and tried to imply that Kerry would wait for international approval to do the hard choices. Kerry did say that it was a mischaracterization of his position, and I think that Kerry was very intelligent in stating that in Americans “guts” they know that his position is better.

Come on guys. Bush obviously won this one. I'll admit Bush sucked on the first debate, but the second was a tie, and this one went to Bush. Contrary to what some others have said, I felt that Kerry looked uncomfortable and stumbled with his words a bit in this debate. He also had a hard time defending his Senate record. Rather ironic that each candidate lost on his "home turf".

I agree. Bush actually spoke well... Perhaps he was on drugs?

Rather ironic that each candidate lost on his "home turf".

I think that's rather a desperate assessment. Of course, I don't see how Bush won any of the debates. Cheney had a better night out, but the nation suddenly got tired of him and seems to have held his dishonesty against him. And speaking of Cheney, did anyone catch Lynn throwing her daughter to the wolves after the debate last night?

Apparently John Kerry is a bad man for pointing out that the party of family values holds that the daughter of the vice-president is a second-class citizen.

Yeah. Send Lynn out there to try to match Elizabeth Edwards busting Veep Dick. Great idea, GOP: it shows how bone-dry you are.

We'll find out who won the debates on Nov. 3.........Right? Right!

Atta Boy

Theoretically.

The podium slapping was hilarious.

I know it is a losing battle, but it is a pet peeve of mine.
PODIUM/LECTERN

Strictly speaking, a podium is a raised platform on which you stand to give a speech; the piece of furniture on which you place your notes and behind which you stand is a lectern.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/podium.html

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

MadAnthony,

You're entitled to your opinion, but the great majority, if not all, of polls clearly indicate Kerry as the winner.

The GOP tried to salvage something about of the miserable first debate, and that little gimmick was "global test". Kerry went out of his way in that debate to say that he would never compromise national security in the face of international frigidity, but nooooooo, the Bush crowd shivers and panics at any mention of international cooperation. To them, working with others to avoid messes like Iraq= Nazi Communism. Paris = Nazi Communism. It's really laughable.

After Bush's trouncing in the last debate, the GOP have tried to pin the Mary Cheney comment on Kerry. Oh boo hoo, Lynne Cheney. You never said anything when Alan Keyes called your daughter a selfish hedonist. No no no, that's just a "difference of opinion". But when John Kerry says anything about your gay daughter, it's "dirty politics". Hey, maybe if you got your head out of the sand...

International cooperation=Finding fools willing to be gun meat. There are little of those. I do not see how Iraq, Afghanistan could be "democratized" using international or intergallactic cooperation.

I do not see how Iraq, Afghanistan could be "democratized" using international or intergallactic cooperation.

If that were so, there's even less chance of that happened through brute and unwarranted force. Actually, Afghanistan was probably the right war, although I'm not totally clear on the details. But unilaterally marching into fundie Muslim nations who see U.S. as the greatest anti-Muslim threat in the world does little to foster democracy.

And if you are a Bush supporter, the point of Iraq was WMDs and imminent threat, not some hippie (how ironic) mission of peace and love-spreading and democracy for all yay!

If that were so, there's even less chance of that happened through brute and unwarranted force. Actually, Afghanistan was probably the right war, although I'm not totally clear on the details. But unilaterally marching into fundie Muslim nations who see U.S. as the greatest anti-Muslim threat in the world does little to foster democracy.

And if you are a Bush supporter, the point of Iraq was WMDs and imminent threat, not some hippie (how ironic) mission of peace and love-spreading and democracy for all yay!

Application of the brute, unwarranted force is pretty much the ONLY way of winning a guerilla war. Trying/failing to be nice is the surest way to endlessly build body count. Guerillas attack only weak or irresolute opponents. Just imagine what USA army would have done to German or Japanese civilians dancing around a burning american tank in 1946, for example. Apply force or get out. Seems that full application of force is not likely in the light of building puppet quasi democracy. Therefore, USA should get out.

I have not seen any evidence of the Osama's/Al Qaeda's participation in 9-11. Sure, I could buy politician's words; but somewhow I do not trust their words. No tangible evidences = no ground to attack Afghanistan. Soviets already tried to build socialism (and some kind of democracy) in the feudal tribal assembly of clans with the name of Afghanistan. For the economics reasons they failed (no, soviets were not defeated military; their economy got tired of the transforming feudal tribes into something else). Now Americans are tryint (officially at least) to bring tribesmen into democratic, capitalist paradise in the shortest time possible. All that "democratic election" circus in Afghanistan looks so fucking ridiculous. Afghanistan is even more hopeless project than Iraq. For time being local warlord are being bribed into some kind of peace. Bribing funds will get exhausted="democratic" experiment is history.

But since when has reality and real issues mattered in elections. This Cheney thing speaks more then America's failures.

Godless - nice pic. how about this one?

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.09.20.KerryvsKerry-X.gif

AntiWar is Winning! Hooray!

:fist pump:

can't you see it's the same guy?

this cartoon is brilliant.. just as the rest of the cartoons by these guys.
it says it all:
Bush doesn't even have to argue. Kerry's own words will eliminate him.
he's got the mentality of a lawyer (which he is) - whatever the case of the day is, prepare for it, and then argue it. lawyers are not supposed to have convictions, and he's a lawyer alright.

well that way the UN can pimp him like the bitch he is! left wing cream dream!

go back to sleep america. everything is okay. the UN has everything under control. sanctions are effective. the US has the only corrupt government in the universe. john kerry has plans. they're better. really. he has NOT offered your collective asses to your alienated 'allies' (wouldn't that mean they were enemies?) (during a presidential debate even). he will negotiate from strength.

(don't forget, george bush raped your sister and killed your parents, then gave their assets to haliburton)

this cartoon is brilliant.. just as the rest of the cartoons by these guys

Response #1: Brilliant, perhaps, in the sense that a fern on a brass rail on an empty stage in front of a brick wall in a deserted comedy club is brilliant.

Or, to borrow from Hillary Clinton, the true hilarity of such a frame is that it protests John Kerry's tendency to change his opinion to suit the facts.

The desperation of the conservative interpretation is heartwrenching. The only thing that could be said of such a scenario as Cox and Forkum present is that we know George W. would later be telling everyone how he beat the crap out of Kerry with his own two hands.

Or, indebted again to Senator Clinton, well, I think the line about W is obvious.

Response #2: I hold with Hype, anyway, Otheadp. Kerry is a man of deep consideration: he'll wrangle with himself daily over the right and wrong. Bush? He just sits on his ass and waits for God to tell him what to do.

Kerry knows what he's asking to step into. He won't abandon a people victimized by his predecessor. But neither will he abandon his armed services. George W. Bush got us into the wrong war at the wrong time. Now we need competent leadership to protect our service members and help fulfill the responsibilities we have assumed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And there are a number of ways John Kerry can choose to go about "fixing" the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I hold with Hype: the anti-war is winning, and this is a good thing--for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and also for the men and women of our American armed services.

Antiwar is winning, people are starting to think in ways that herald an age when large-scale warfare is widely understood to be dependably suppressed by over-arching (and underpinning) economic forces. I think Americans are going to start learning very fast. Fear (of poverty) is a great motivator.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the great majority, if not all, of polls clearly indicate Kerry as the winner.

You're correct about the polls. I think this is because most people only really watched the first debate and, when questioned, assumed he'd won the rest whether they watched it or not.

We'll find out who won the debates on Nov. 3.........Right? Right!
Atta Boy

For once, I agree with Mr. Atta. If Bush had performed the way he did in the last debate in the first debate, Kerry would be toast right now. As it is, he's still in the race. I still think Kerry will go down to an ignimonious 48 state defeat. We shall see soon enough. One things for sure, I'll be there bright and early to cast my vote and my wife and I will be helping to get out the Republican vote.

And which state will that be in?

Denial.

Given the popularity of 50 Cent, wrestling, the huge jacked up station wagons known as SUVs, and Britney Spears, it would be diffucult to lower my opinion of many of my fellow Americans. But electing Bush really could.

http://www.shocking.com/~z29/phone.jpg

But electing Bush really could.

In the end it will genius' like madanthonywayne and his intrepid wife that will secure that America falls off the wagon, and into the vile, and disgusting world that we call reality. Re-electing Bush may be what America needs to realize that it is not all it thinks it is. Oh and I wouldn’t travel the world liberally if I were an American. Because a re-election of Bush would transcend Anti-Bushism into real and just as passionate Anti-Americanism. Also Europe will say thank you to Mad, and his cohorts for destroying American power so irreversibly that it would become the world’s superpower along with China. Don’t believe me? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41576 says it all. History has always depended on the will of the ignorant to fulfill its repetitive destiny. I thank you in advance Mad, and you wife.

Remember, Bush is a candidate for election, not re-election. Have to be elected in order to be re-elected.

The question you have to ask yourself which is the real election? You’re voting or the electoral college? Where does democracy actually exist in the US?

Democracy exists within the states. The federal arrangement is not a democracy.

You never vote "as an American" in this country. You only vote as a citizen of your state or below. The tallest point of the heirarchy from which I will cast a vote will be as a Washingtonian, not as an American.

i dont see how any of these countries can claim to be democracies.

in a democracy, a newborn would be able to vote
the insane would be allowed to vote
criminals would be allowed to vote

now this is obviously a stupid idea, so the solution, stop calling yourself a deomcracy

Not necessarily. Newborns and the insane are unable to consent to be governed. Criminals have severed their part in the social contract.

but a democracy is simply a government where the people have the power. by using the term 'the people' it is implying all of the people, no exceptions

Democracy is not coercion. One must choose to participate in the democratic process; thus, the consent of the governed. There is a legitimate question about how we treat convicts in this country, but I'm of the opinion that while you're in prison, you're in prison. You don't have the right to bear arms, you don't have the right to free speech; I don't see why the right to vote is inherent for a convicted felon. Of course, I draw a firm line on parole or release: once you're out, you're back in the world. This thing with preventing ex-cons from voting is just ridiculous.

In some states you have to vote by law, so democracy is not always a voluntary action.

Which states here in the USA require you to vote???

I mean states like Australia, should have been more clear.

aah cuz I wish it was required here :(

In some states you have to vote by law, so democracy is not always a voluntary action.

Then Saddam Hussein was legitimately re-elected by 99% of the Iraqi people.

Or, to be more specific, "Then it's not democracy".

It's a hard word to live up to.

Source: New York Times (http://nytimes.com/)
Link: http://nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17beschloss.html
Title: "Debating Your Way To Defeat"
Date: October 17, 2004

Accepting his party's nomination in the Kemper Arena on Aug. 19, Mr. Ford declared, "I am eager to go before the American people and debate the real issues face to face with Jimmy Carter." Mr. Ford's gamble began a modern tradition of televised presidential debates. This tradition has had one important and, for Mr. Ford at least, unintended effect: presidents don't win re-election as often as they used to.

During the 80 years before Mr. Ford's challenge to Jimmy Carter, only two presidents lost: William Howard Taft, who suffered from a once-in-a-lifetime party split, and Herbert Hoover, who presided over the worst economic depression in American history. In contrast, during the 28 years since Mr. Ford threw down the gauntlet, three incumbent presidents - Mr. Ford himself, Mr. Carter and George H. W. Bush - have lost re-election. And if the latest polls on the current race have any meaning, a fourth defeated president is a distinct possibility.

New York Times (http://nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17beschloss.html)

From the opinion page of the New York Times, Michael Beschloss considers the modern history of the televised presidential debate.
____________________

• Beschloss, Michael. "Debating Your Way to Defeat". New York Times, October 17, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17beschloss.html

INteresting article on John Kerry:

Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/17/news/edkerry.html

aah cuz I wish it was required here

Why would you want to do that? Requiring people to vote would simply introduce a greater random element into the electoral process by forcing the uninterested and, therefore, uninformed to vote.

If people were required to vote, they might actually spend some time to "inform" them selves. I honestly don’t care how it would change the results, it’s the fact that the majority of this nation is that apathetic and uninterested in who runs their country that saddens me.

It may sadden you. To some extent it saddens me as well. Still, it would sadden me more to have a bunch of people who are largely ignorant of the issues of the day showing up because they had to and voting for whoever's name sounded familiar or whoever was listed first on the list.

Who to say that would be the situation? Perhaps enforced voting would greatly increase citizen civics.

Wishful thinking, you'd be amazed at how many people are ignorant of basic US history and current events. Ask a few random people you come into contact with who won the civil war, who the US fought against in WW2, who is in charge of the Dept of Homeland Security? I think many people don't vote because they, rightly, feel they don't know enough or care enough to make a choice.

I would completely support mandatory voting.

I also would support voting reform. Like changing the voting day into the voting week, overhaul registration process, and one size fits all federal paper ballot.

I feel mandatory voting would require the state to make a concerted effort to educate the public on the whole election processes. More in depth coverage of the office seekers and the office holders.

We have Mandatory papers we must carry, taxes we must pay, speeds we must drive, schooling we must attend, etc. etc..

The regular voter is typicaly in the minority of Americans, the national elections strive to reach 50%.

Who can blame them, the non-voter? Work, food, sleep, commute, family. Educating yourself of 50 or so candidates and issues every year in by no means a simplistic task. Perhaps mandatory voting can bring the plethora of ineptitudes of our democracy to light so it doesn't continue to fester away in the darkness.

so what happened to the land of the free, mandatory voting, here comes big brother.

just because the proles, dont feel the need to vote, it's there right.





and bush will win.

required voting seems to work well enough in other countries. I would not say it wishful thinking.

Land of the free?

Mandatory drug tests to get insurance, work, injured at work, sporatic tests when company wants you to, upheld by the courts. (polygragh tests were thrown out in the 80s).

Mandatory insurance for drivers, state enforced. what a crock, it used to be called the protection racket.

Mandatory identity papers. If you do not have valid ID (state drivers liscense, state ID card) it is a misdemeanor. Subject to fines and imprisonment.

Mandatory speed limits. Since Nixon, the state reserved the right to (selectively)enforce the speed. Heretofore the speed limit was safe and sane. For love of power over citizenry, and greed at thinly veiled tax on the targeted.

Mandatory sentencing. Our justice system is screwed beyond measure. We have the highest per capita incarceration rate of ANY industrialized nation. It cost the taxpayer approximtely $30,000 to hold a prisoner for 1 year. less than 30% of prisoners are held on violent crime charges. The great majority are for Drug and Traffic violations. It is a police state we live in. The siege mentality just hasn't kicked in yet.

You are subject to search and siezure in any public area. The drug laws have allowed for a sieze first policy. Only after defeating charges in the court system, up to 2 years later. So you can be driving, pulled over, have all your cash siezed as 'drug money'($2,000 in '92), then not get your money back until you beat the wrap.

Exactly how free do you think you are in America?
I don't mean free so long as you stay invisible either.
Can you walk naked as the day you were born and worship the sun god with your crispy skin? Why not?
Can you 'do drugs'? Why not?
Can you live off the land anywhere in the US? Why not?
Can you -----------OK ranting subsiding, think of summation.

There are so many oppresive laws that yoke the US citizenry to a docile apathetic existence it is simply beyond rational to call America 'the land of the free'

Insane,
All those laws are there to protect you :)

I agree another mandatory law requiring ppl to vote is not what this country needs. You should have the right to be a lazy SOB.

just because the proles, dont feel the need to vote, it's there right.

and bush will win.

It's an odd gamble. Controversy brings out the deadbeat liberal crowd to the polls, and also new or disenchanted oppositional voters. This is among the reasons higher turnout producs a more progressive result.

An interesting phenomenon that I hadn't accounted for until I heard my partner talking about her father: He's deeply religious, a law-and-order conservative, considered by the GOP to be part of its "base".

He's not voting for President this year. He cannot on conscience support George W. Bush, but refuses to vote for Kerry, and if he's going to throw away his vote (e.g. third-party), he's not going to bother.

Which brings to mind an old Rush song I had to hear thousands of times in my pizza-slinging days: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".

It's the alienated GOP base that faces the biggest challenges of conscience; I can't say I expect such a sentiment to rip apart the base, but the GOP base is definitely reduced by President Bush's lack of apparent conscience, reliance on federal expansion to buoy job numbers, and general dishonesty.

I would love to see the GOP voter base come unhinged; there are few things in the world I take delight in being wrong about, but the United States would benefit so greatly from the dissolution of the GOP at present that I would love to be wrong about those millions who seem to believe believe lying to be a noble pursuit for a warmongering president.