Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Chit-Chat (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30) (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30532)

Pin Man 09-10-2004 15:03

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeXIII'007
Looking at it from a undecided voter's side, I saw Bush as too slow to answer the questions or respond to Kerry, and Kerry flip-flopped once, but quickly recovered. In other words, Kerry defeated Bush like it was nothing.

Now for the pro-Kerry side of my opinion: Being quick and confident in answering his questions, Kerry was READY for this, while Bush looked like he needed sleep. It especially showed on the one rebuttle Bush tried to do, and it started with a 5-second shot of him staring in the camera, mouth open and eyes blinking. LOL. Not to mention his vocabulary was small. How many times am I going to hear the word inconsistent, freedom, and other words he said 30 times or more? If one is going to win this race by the way he speaks, he should have a good vocabulary to desribe in concise details how he is going to go about his policies.
:cool:

My parents and I cannot wait for the debate on domestic issues. It will be interesting to see how Bush handles it.

Well I don't think you would be confident in answering questions if you had dislecsia (spelling?)...

I was undecided but I'm more for Bush now... All I hear is that Kerry has all these huge plans for our country, such as new jobs, new programs, more tax cuts, better weapons, more this, more that, spend spend spend... Where is Kerry going to get all this money? He can't... Not to mention as he talks big about these huge plans for us he has yet to inform us on what they are... I'd like to know what he plans to do (and is consistent with his plans) before I give him power as commander and chief...

Bill Gold 09-10-2004 16:48

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
Last night the candidates had the chance to present their case to the common people. Kerry made their “common-ness” clear when he pointed out that his tax hike would not apply to the audience, just to the three rich guys on the stage.

One thing we know for sure is that it’s the commoners who collectively adjudicate common sense. One tenant of such is to recognize that hindsight is 20/20. Who among them does not know at least one Monday morning quarterback? How many have read Thomas Paine’s lament about times that try men’s soles and the summertime soldiers and the sunshine patriots who succumb to those times? How many will not put two and two together and recognize Kerry for what he is?

It’s probably true that few, if any, in the audience went to Ivy League schools. But they know how to add. As much as the have-nots are inclined to envy, they will come to the conclusion that Kerry cannot cure all of our ills by bleeding the rich. They will realize that it’s their doctor, builder, lawyer, plumber, and maybe the grass cutter who’ll get hit first. They will know sure as anything that the cost will get passed on to them. They will know that it’s still not enough.

Will they be happy to find they’ve entered the ranks of the wealthy once the Kerry tax hike applies directly to them?

Common sense tells us that health insurance for all will not make us all healthy. The evidence of that is seen across our northern border, where a government committee decides how many hip replacements there will be every year – irrespective of how many people actually need one. We see that the overflow – the ones who can afford to – have to come to America. Common economic sense tells us that Kerry’s plan to pump money into the health care demand side would only work to drive up the market-clearing price of insurance. So, the thousand dollars per person would end up enriching only the likes of BC&BS – who, by the way, could then better afford to enrich the ambulance chasers who are sucking us dry.

There’s a line in a film about the quintessential common man that goes: “I may not be a smart man, but I know what love is.” How many in that audience didn’t look at Laura and just know she loves George? Is it not obvious to them also that Teresa prefers Heinz to Kerry. History is rife with instances where the common man would revolt against the Aristocrats who would “let them eat cake.” I can’t imagine the heart of America endearing a First Lady who would have them “go naked for a while.” Common sense tells us to judge a man by the company he keeps.

At the end of the day, common sense should tell us that Bush won the October 8 debate.

What Tristan said…

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Y.
Well if you really want to get nitpicky.....:) It's not thirty countries like Bush and Cheney said but 24 that are allied with us in Iraq. Six dropped out.

I guess part of my implied point was that the country with the 4th, or so, largest contingent in Iraq, which President Bush chastised Kerry for glossing over in the first debate is pulling out of Iraq. I thought that this, coupled with the allegations of widespread fraud and other problems with the Afghanistan election (not to mention other international and domestic gaffs thus far in the debates) were telltale signs of George Bush either not properly relaying information from advisors and foreign officials, or not leveling with the American people on the true situation in America and abroad. For anyone who has had any experience in politics (and to the majority of the politically disinclined, as well) it is absolutely clear that our government and this administration did not learn about these issues (Poland’s troops and Afghanistan’s tainted elections, for example) from the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, or the BBC. They must have known about these problems days in advance, or they weren’t doing their jobs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pin Man
Well I don't think you would be confident in answering questions if you had dislecsia (spelling?)...

I was undecided but I'm more for Bush now... All I hear is that Kerry has all these huge plans for our country, such as new jobs, new programs, more tax cuts, better weapons, more this, more that, spend spend spend... Where is Kerry going to get all this money? He can't... Not to mention as he talks big about these huge plans for us he has yet to inform us on what they are... I'd like to know what he plans to do (and is consistent with his plans) before I give him power as commander and chief...

The first paragraph of this post relates to your post.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...4&postcount=15

Adam Y. 09-10-2004 17:41

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
Quote:

I guess part of my implied point was that the country with the 4th, or so, largest contingent in Iraq, which President Bush chastised Kerry for glossing over in the first debate is pulling out of Iraq. I thought that this, coupled with the allegations of widespread fraud and other problems with the Afghanistan election (not to mention other international and domestic gaffs thus far in the debates) were telltale signs of George Bush either not properly relaying information from advisors and foreign officials, or not leveling with the American people on the true situation in America and abroad.
I understand your implied point completely. Im sorry if I sounded sarcastic but I am actually agreeing with you. He said there were thirty countries in Iraq yet six of them are withdrawing. There was one thing that bothered me about the most recent debate. It was mainly the fact that both candidates had a plan to get rid of half the defecit in the same amount and yet no one actually said what their plan was besides eleminating spending.

Jack Jones 12-10-2004 23:17

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Oct. 8)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
Jack, you win the award for most frequent use of the word "common" in a single post, however, common sense does not equal good sense. If (hypothetically) you lived in a nation of fools, would you advocate fools' sense? You are appealing to popularity (a logical fallacy) by claiming that Kerry ignores common sense, when you ought to be claiming that he ignores good sense (which is hopefully quantifiable, and not necessarily subject to the whims of a largely ill-informed populace).

Tristan,

Thanks for the award! Though not exactly the Lady Bing, I’ll take it.

I’m not sure about the Canadian definition, but here, common is sense taken to mean:

Main Entry: common sense
Function: noun
: sound and prudent but often unsophisticated judgment

On the other hand, I understand where you’re coming from. By virtue of living most all of my life within range of the CBC, I have seen many instances where it could be interpreted as the opinion of fools. Unfortunately, more than ever, we now see the same kind of socialist non-sense coming from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN.

Apparently, you have missed the true theme of my post, which is understandable. Most every child in America has been introduced to the writings of one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, collectively entitled: “Common Sense.” It was a dog-gone dirty trick on my part to have the reader recall that subconscious wisdom in comparison to the rhetoric from both sides today. So, to bring you up to speed, here are a few examples. Do you notice any parallels; and to which side they would most likley apply?

A little matter will move a party, but it must be something great that moves a nation.
A nation under a well regulated government, should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support. - Rights of Man, 1792

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - Dissertation on First Principles of Government, December 23, 1791

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. - The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. - The American Crisis, No. 4, September 11, 1777

Quote:

In Canada (specifically Ontario), health insurance is government-run, and funded by taxes. All you have to do to receive medical services is show proof of medical insurance, which is issued to (essentially) every citizen and resident in the form of a "health card". We cringe at the idiocy of a system that doesn't guarantee medical services to its citizens and residents--
I'm glad you're happy with your health card. Maybe when they start giving out cars I'll cross over. But then again, I'd rather stay and buy Corvette than move and get a Yugo for free.

Quote:

In other words, it's just stupid.
What is stupid is to expect proof of an opinion. Was Pascal stupid when he opined the following:

"The heart has its reasons which reason knows not of."

Tristan Lall 13-10-2004 01:01

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Oct. 8)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
I’m not sure about the Canadian definition, but here, common is sense taken to mean:

Main Entry: common sense
Function: noun
: sound and prudent but often unsophisticated judgment

I can pick and choose definitions too: "A supposed sense which was held to be the common bond of all the others." (From a Canadian site, def. 1 under the subheading, "common sense".) As I pointed out the first time, common sense isn't necessarily that far from "unsophisticated" group-think, when one's sense is common to fools.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
Apparently, you have missed the true theme of my post, which is understandable. Most every child in America has been introduced to the writings of one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, collectively entitled: “Common Sense.” It was a dog-gone dirty trick on my part to have the reader recall that subconscious wisdom in comparison to the rhetoric from both sides today.

But wait--you're telling me you were recalling Thomas Paine and his Common Sense the whole time? That's a little exaggerated, don't you think?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
Common sense tells us that health insurance for all will not make us all healthy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
Common sense tells us to judge a man by the company he keeps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
common sense should tell us that Bush won the October 8 debate

That's your common sense, not Thomas's Common Sense talking. Paine has bigger fish to fry than health care--after all, the essays are all about American independence and the like.

I happily grant that you share many views with Thomas Paine (such as fighting force with force, and not judging a nation until you've experienced the same hardships as that nation) but to say that your post was thematically enriched by the substance of his essay is going a little too far. Indeed, you argue ad hominem against Kerry and his wife, denigrating them based on unfounded speculation and convenient proverbs. That is not the spirit of Thomas Paine; that's simply bad form and bad logic in a civilized debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
On the other hand, I understand where you’re coming from. By virtue of living most all of my life within range of the CBC, I have seen many instances where it could be interpreted as the opinion of fools. Unfortunately, more than ever, we now see the same kind of socialist non-sense coming from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN.

You forgot the Daily Worker. It, Jack, is socialist nonsense. The rest are sources of news, which don't necessarily have to bend to your political whims.

But, since you provided quotations, I digress.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
So, to bring you up to speed, here are a few examples. Do you notice any parallels; and to which side they would most likley apply?

Fine. I'll even be fair about it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
A little matter will move a party, but it must be something great that moves a nation.

Neither side: nobody's done anything particularly great recently, at least not on the scale Paine envisions.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
A nation under a well regulated government, should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support. - Rights of Man, 1792

Republicans: "ignorance for its support" describes the attitude toward providing evidence of Iraq's belligerance. This isn't a good thing.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - Dissertation on First Principles of Government, December 23, 1791

Both sides: representatives of both parties have historically picked and chosen the oppressed enemies whom they wish to liberate. Though Paine takes the moral high ground, this sentiment, as it has been applied by American (and world) governments in the past, leaves much to be desired.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.

Republicans: that's fair enough; the Democrats tend to look for a peaceful solution, and are therefore far more reluctant to go to war for a cause.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. - The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776

Democrats: they like taxes after all. I'm being slightly facetious; this doesn't really have much to do with political ideology--unless, of course, you are advocating some sort of masochistic policy of promoting "dearness" (i.e. lack) of useful things, in order that we might esteem them less lightly.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. - The American Crisis, No. 4, September 11, 1777

Both: Republicans would probably take the obvious approach, and use this as support of a strong military. Democrats would take the position that the "blessings of freedom" are borne by the "fatigues" of taxes and compromise. Aside: Notice the ad hominem argument by Paine, as he denigrates the manliness of those who disagree with him. Maybe Jack has more of Paine's spirit in that post than I previously thought.

But enough of that.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
I'm glad you're happy with your health card. Maybe when they start giving out cars I'll cross over. But then again, I'd rather stay and buy Corvette than move and get a Yugo for free.

Firstly, yes, I'm happy with the card. I don't get refused treatment. I also don't get stuck with exorbitant premiums if I so much as cough in the wrong direction. What's the big deal, anyway? I pay the government, you pay an HMO.
Secondly, on average, we pay less for the same cars than you do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
What is stupid is to expect proof of an opinion.

Proof is par for the course when debating.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
Was Pascal stupid when he opined the following:

"The heart has its reasons which reason knows not of."

So was Pascal opining or debating? If he were debating, he ought to provide evidence. Whether or not Pascal was stupid doesn't enter into it--presented without proof in a debate, his argument can justifiably be called stupid.

Returning to Paine, there's an unflattering angle on this whole war affair. One could argue that, as the weaker people, the Iraqis are in a similar position to the colonial Americans. But of course, that casts America as the evil empire. Perhaps the insurgent leaders should take the advice of one of their kind, and apply it to their dealings with America. After all, if we're to note the parallels, why not be fair and balanced about it?

Jack Jones 13-10-2004 07:22

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
Apparently one of us thinks this tread was a call for opinion as to who won the U.S. Presidential debate and the other thinks it was really a call to debate the debate. I will leave it to you to debate ad infinitum. At the end of the day on November 2nd we will find that one of our opinions mattered and the other’s $0.02 wasn’t worth the $0.0158 of the current exchange. In other words, we will not find a Lall in the action! :)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi