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)

Tristan Lall 30-09-2004 22:45

Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
It's got to be asked. We might as well let a Canadian do the asking.

Bush or Kerry? Why?

Corey Balint 30-09-2004 22:50

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
Bush was pretty pitiful, if im not mistaken he said something about not using force in Iraq. Isnt involving troops in attacks force?

Kerry wasnt too impressive however, although he did give more solid choices and did not flipflop, his speech was still dull. Bush however paused wayy too much and studdered alot, most of the time repeating himself.

Id have to go with Kerry winning though, for having better Iraq plans and just keeping strong with decisions.

Paul H 30-09-2004 22:57

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
I didn't really hear many Iraq plans on Kerry's part. He kept refering to them, but there was little elaboration on what they are.

Ryan Dognaux 30-09-2004 23:13

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
I thought the debate was fairly balanced on each side. I really liked the format of this debate compared to the 2000 debates.

Ryan F. 30-09-2004 23:20

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
I grew sich of hearing talk about how kerry had these great iraq war plans. All he said was that he had them....what are they you might ask. He hasn't revealed these to anyone...typical politics. I also question someone who's not sure if he's sure we should be in the war has any good plans for it.

George1902 30-09-2004 23:35

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
Did anyone else notice what happened when the two candidates made eye contact? Kerry was always the first to look away. He couldn't stare Bush down. Bush made Kerry look like a wet noodle.

I think Bush won. Of course he won the foreign policy debate. We'll see what happens as the topics turn more towards domestic issues, where I tend to side with Kerry more.

D.J. Fluck 30-09-2004 23:44

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
For a "champion debater" who has been compared to Cicero(1) in skill (and spent the last many years debating in the Senate Chamber) I thought he was pretty pathetic. Bush didn't do as well as he could of, but comparing the
"initial skill level" and all the hype from these people, I wasn't impressed at all. Sure Bush could have done a better job, but Kerry really turned his debate into trying to rip bush over and over and sometimes ended up contradicting himself. In fact at one point on a question about the War on Terror, Kerry ended up going off topic and telling how Bush's tax cut for the upper 2% was a bad idea for most of the quest ion....Bush took a second to defend himself, but he then said to the senator lets save that for the next debates. Yes, at certain points Bush was pretty repetitive, but hey all of this is something for them to work on.

It was a pretty good start to the debates, hopefully they will only get better.



(1) = As said by Kerry's college debate coach

Ali Ahmed 30-09-2004 23:45

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
I think Kerry won the debate. He just had a very strong front and demeanor as well. Bush, on the other hand, acted like a five yeah child by repeating everything he said and by taking incredibly long pauses that make him look like he is a little slow, which he might be. But i don;t want to start a debate.

Arefin Bari 30-09-2004 23:57

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
40% of the ppl voted for kerry that he won the debate...

28% of the ppl voted for bush...

others were neutral...

correct me if i am wrong plz... thanks... :)


p.s.- keep in mind that i was updated right after the debate was over... i never saw the news on cnn... when i heard it ... it was live... thanks...

Tristan Lall 01-10-2004 00:07

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
So I'm going to jump in as well: I say Kerry won.
  • Kerry repeatedly reminded the audience that the so-called war on terrorism was originally intended a campaign against terrorists, and not against merely oppressive governments. Bush was unfortunately stuck with his own record as an incumbent, and couldn't, even if he wanted to, have agreed.
  • Kerry did much to dispel the notions of flip-floppery over Iraq, by stating clearly that he believed Saddam Hussein to be a threat, but disagreed with the actions taken by the current administration.
  • Kerry also firmly argued that he prefers that a "strong coalition", with a balanced commitment from several nations, working together in fighting terrorism (and the like)--this in contrast to Bush's (in my opinion, hollow and unjustified) contention that the coalition of America, Great Britain and Australia (and later Poland) was just as effective.
  • Kerry made a commitment to work against nuclear proliferation everywhere, noting American hypocrisy regarding anti-bunker munitions (tactical nuclear devices, not strictly WMDs!); Bush restricted that to nucular [sic :)] devices in the hands of terrorists (and presumably "rogue states")--he did not encourage nuclear disarmament in general.
  • Bush's statements about the International Criminal Court were practically criminal themselves, in their insensitivity and gross disregard for the opinions of non-Americans. To claim that the courts are a sham and that the officers of the court are not held accountable for their actions sends an intolerable message--that Americans are the only arbiters of justice, in his view. (This was a minor issue, but from a non-American's perspective, it reveals much about the underlying bias against the involvement of the world in American affairs.)
  • Bush's diction was more stilted than Kerry's, and he was responsible for a number of awkward pauses. Though his abilities as a leader aren't affected by awkward pauses, his image as a public speaker was tarnished.
  • Bush's repetitious nature has been wearing on me (less so Kerry, but that could be bias talking), and this debate seemed to introduce no new ideas from the Republican camp. This could have something to do with their "stay the course" policies.
  • On a related note, Bush said that he was steadfast and unshakable in his core beliefs; Kerry said that his opinion changed as his knowledge and experience changed. Isn't it funny that this in some fashion parallels the difference in opinion between religious fundamentalism and secular humanism (in that one has everlasting, unimpeachable beliefs and the other has everchanging and inherently imperfect beliefs)....In any event, I'm not insinuating anything--it's just an observation.
  • Kerry repeatedly pushed the idea that Bush made wrong decisions. I think that this makes for a very compelling strategy on the part of the Kerry campaign--show that Bush made (in his opinion) the wrong decision, with the same evidence available to him (as Bush repeatedly pointed out, to his own detriment, I'd say).
  • Kerry, on several points, got a "free pass" when Bush was seemingly caught off guard by Lehrer (the moderator) telling him to take 30 seconds to make another statement; Bush was often reduced to repeating himself, while Kerry usually (but not always) managed to get in some further content. Bush also rambled incoherently when he brought up the anecdote about the lady whose son had been to war--it may have been sentimental, but it allowed Kerry to capitalize on that point.
To Kerry's disadvantage, however:
  • Kerry did not speak clearly about his "global test". I think (and would hope that) he meant that Americans would allow the needs of other nations' peoples to influence his decisions--but at least it was clear that domestic matters would be primarily decided by domestic needs; that's fair enough. In any event, Bush ridiculed it, and because of the shaky support by Kerry, this issue could find itself sticking around.
  • Kerry couldn't provide an exact synopsis of his plans in Iraq. To be fair, two minutes to explain a totally new policy is next-to-impossible, but he will still be dogged endlessly by this point unless he clarifies it at the earliest opportunity. To his credit, he did clarify that it was, in his opinion, possible to withdraw from Iraq, starting in 6 months; he did not make a firm commitment--interpret that as you will.
So as a practical matter, why was a Canadian watching an American debate? How many Americans can even name the Canadian Prime Minister? (To use an oft-repeated--in Canada, at least--but slightly disingenuous question.) It's because the rest of the world (including the U.S.A.) matters; it ought to concern more Americans what's going on in the world, and I don't think Bush has covered that issue adequately. Kerry has done better, but the current exclusivist mentality in much of America doesn't lend itself to earning votes through appeals to the world community.

The debate which was allegedly devoted to foreign policy had much to do with inherently domestic issues. This brand of terrorism isn't so much a foreign policy issue, for it's clear that terrorism against Americans is the only terrorism that was dealt with in the debate (excepting the very last question, in which Russia was briefly mentioned). Though that terrorism occurs primarily in foreign areas occupied by Americans, a proper "leader of the free world" (self-styled as that may be) would likely be expected to address terrorism wherever it exists, and not merely against those places that are politically expedient. This is a bitter pill for Americans (and likely everyone involved), but anything less makes it painfully obvious to those who observe world events that much of the "good fight" is bravado and posturing for the domestic market. I would say that Bush is guilty of it, and he is not alone among American presidents in that judgement. Neither is America alone in that situation--even Canada has been known to put its selfish interests above humanitarian needs. Even so, in whatever small ideological measure it represents, it would be a moral (and probably Pyrrhic) victory for Kerry if he were to choose to work with the world to solve its problems and earn the "leader of the free world" title. It's a slightly naïve wish, but given time, that's the direction that America should be heading. The current America-first policy is appalling, and undermines everything that the United Nations (and the League before it) did for the world--America renders them irrelevant by simply ignoring them, and in so doing, harms the citizenry of the world, and earns the adulation of around 50% of the American population. What a strange country America can be, sometimes.

In the interests of disclosure, it is probably obvious that my political opinions are more closely aligned with Kerry than with Bush--nevertheless, I have no party line to maintain, and have made an effort to remain lucid and fair in my assessments. Even so, one must always remember that bias is everywhere--discovering and interpreting bias is therefore a most critical skill.

(And as an administrative matter, I noticed that there was at least one similar response in the other debate thread--it wasn't a poll, so I think it's fair to create a new thread for that purpose, and to discuss this debate specifically).

Tristan Lall 01-10-2004 00:17

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

Originally Posted by Arefin Bari
40% of the ppl voted for kerry that he won the debate...

28% of the ppl voted for bush...

others were neutral...

correct me if i am wrong plz... thanks... :)

Here's what CNN has on it. "This is not, repeat not, a scientific poll."

So far, 103 444 votes, and 79% favour Kerry, 18% favour Bush and 4% think that there was no clear winner. (Equals 101%. Rounding, people. :rolleyes: )

Bill Gold 01-10-2004 00:20

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

Originally Posted by Arefin Bari
40% of the ppl voted for kerry that he won the debate...

28% of the ppl voted for bush...

others were neutral...

correct me if i am wrong plz... thanks... :)

I just saw a 53-37 split in favor of Kerry (of debate viewers) on CNN <edit> apparently it was a gallup poll.</edit>.
Chris Mathews' website on MSNBC says 71-29 in favor of Kerry.

Just a few thoughts…
I think Kerry did a good job of calling Bush on his factually incorrect, intentional or unintentional tying of Osama bin Laden and Iraq. Kerry also, correctly, pointed out that bin Laden is using our invasion of Iraq to stir up anti-American hatred in the world. What was Bush’s response? He said that Osama bin Laden can’t determine our policies. Apparently he just doesn’t understand the points other people put forward if they aren’t in line with his own.

Anyone else notice that Bush tried to drink from an empty glass twice? Bush was on the defensive the entire night, and stumbled with his words (calling terrorists “folks” after not being able to find a better word in 5-7 seconds of pondering). Bush also keeps bringing up the false and misleading “75% of Al Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed,” I wish Kerry had called him on that statistic and told the American people that the 75% is just 75% of the people involved in the September 11th attacks, not the entirety of Al Qaeda (since they’re a secretive terrorist group, it’s impossible to tell exactly how many people are in Al Qaeda, or run Al Qaeda). I disagree with the observation that Bush made Kerry look like a “wet noodle.”

While Bush might want Kerry to be distracted and suckered into a staring contest, but a good debater keeps himself or herself focused and aware of what everyone else is saying, and keeping whatever noted he/she believes could potentially help later on.

-Bill

<edit>
ABC has a 45-36 split for Kerry on the debate.
</edit>

<edit_2>
Bush also doesn't seem to understand "we're not against the soldiers, we're against the war."
</edit_2>

sanddrag 01-10-2004 01:29

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

Originally Posted by Ryan Forystek
I grew sich of hearing talk about how kerry had these great iraq war plans.

I bet when Kerry gets an e-mail it says "You've got plans." :D Or, howabout a Kerry doll with one of those strings that pulls out of the back and when released it says "I've got plans! I've got plans!" I personally like hearing all about Kerry's plans simply because there really aren't any. But wait, he has plans... :D LOL

Jack Jones 01-10-2004 02:23

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
I thought Kerry won it. He did a much better job of debating, simple as that!

Bush missed a grand opportunity do what Kerry did well (I.E. counter punch) when he didn’t jump on the lame Michel Moore point that ten times the troops sent to Iraq vis-a-vis Afghanistan showed that Bush felt that Saddam was ten times the threat of bin Laden. What he should have done was question whether MM would become Kerry’s Secretary of Defense. Then he should have destroyed that idea as being totally ignorant of military strategy. As Napoleon learned at Waterloo, you do not project massive force into a limited space. Afghanistan, where the bad guys hang out, is a series of valleys between steep ridges. Large numbers of troops would have had to amass in the valleys and get strung out on the mountainous trails. Even small bands of misfits (AKA Taliban) would have cut them to shreds. So, Bush missed a chance to make Kerry look like a fool.

Bush almost never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Kerry rolled his eyes when he realized that, immediately after the 10:1 remark, he contradicted himself by saying we didn’t send enough troops into Iraq. Had he seen Kerry reeling, Bush could have knocked him down by saying how sorely we’d come to miss the 750,000 troops lost to the Clinton administration. Similarly, he failed to suggest that had Carter not been a girlie man, we wouldn’t even be talking about nukes in Iran. (Hey! That rhymes:)

So, Kerry won the debate – hands down!

I hereby nominate myself for Couch President. It’s a whole lot easier to debate sitting down.

PS:
If we were in a debate with bin Laden & Co., then I’d say, go ahead – elect Kerry. I lived through a time, fresh out of high school, when the politicians thought they knew best how many troops to deploy, which days of the year to drop bombs, which targets were militarily significant, and that body count ratios were the metrics of war. I can still see the American evacuees hanging from helicopter skits as the result.

I also recall that the peace talks in Paris began with months of debate over the shape of the table and ended with some of my friends abandoned forever in Nam. So, with what I know now and given the choice between a motor boat skipper turned politician who believes he’s an Admiral and a less polished orator who believes Tommy Franks, I would not choose to live through that again.

Bill Gold 01-10-2004 02:23

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

Originally Posted by Paul H
I didn't really hear many Iraq plans on Kerry's part. He kept refering to them, but there was little elaboration on what they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanddrag
I bet when Kerry gets an e-mail it says "You've got plans." :D Or, howabout a Kerry doll with one of those strings that pulls out of the back and when released it says "I've got plans! I've got plans!" I personally like hearing all about Kerry's plans simply because there really aren't any. But wait, he has plans... :D LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Forystek
I grew sich of hearing talk about how kerry had these great iraq war plans. All he said was that he had them....what are they you might ask. He hasn't revealed these to anyone...typical politics. I also question someone who's not sure if he's sure we should be in the war has any good plans for it.

I figured resourceful FIRST kids who had the interest in politics to post in a thread with that core topic would show the initiative to check out his website, or attend a stump speech (you don’t have to sign a loyalty oath to get into Kerry’s). Why is it that it’s always the people who don’t want Kerry to have plans are the ones who ignore the fact that he actually has them? What’s on Kerry’s website and in his speeches are legitimate ideas. If after reading all of the documentation you still think he doesn’t have these plans, then you must also agree that President Bush doesn’t have a plan to fix what’s broken (internationally and domestically), either. If you have specific questions for the campaigns you can contact them for comments. It’s nearly impossible to put all of your thoughts and ideas into a 2 min, 90 second, or 30 second time slot. You can’t knock him for giving cliffs’ notes versions of his ideas during the debates, or telling you to visit his website.

Ryan,
Kerry was against the immediacy that Bush took us to war, but now that we’re there he has said we need to finish the job. There’s no wavering there. He said tonight that we “broke it [Iraq], we own it, and now we’ve got to fix it [for the world’s sake].” He said it was a situation that didn’t necessarily have to come to fruition, but it happened, and we’re dedicated to fixing it. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with or preventing Kerry from disagreeing with the president’s impatience to go to war, and then having a plan to better manage the situations in Iraq.

Joe Matt 01-10-2004 08:54

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
Well, besides my democart bias, the thing is that when your presdient gets the date for 9/11 wrong (9/10 according to him) you start to worry.

Joshua May 01-10-2004 09:24

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

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
Bush almost never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Kerry rolled his eyes when he realized that, immediately after the 10:1 remark, he contradicted himself by saying we didn’t send enough troops into Iraq.

Kerry said that we did not send enough troops into Iraq to get the job done, but who says he would have gone into Iraq anyways, at least not until we were through with Afghanistan, and Iraq posed a serious threat.

Oh, and I'd just like to point out a history-anecdote for you all. The same exact thing happened after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, where Austria-Hungary told its citizens that Serbia had sponsored terrorism, (despite all the facts saying otherwise) and used that to invade Serbia. This invasion of Serbia, then, triggered what we call World War I.

And there is a term that Bush continues to use in this debate and in his RNC speech that really, really scares me, and that's "the broader middle east." He's not talking about just Iraq, this could include expansion into Iran and other nations, which would really spell trouble. Not to mention a draft would be needed, and I'd be in said draft.

Back to the point, Kerry won hands down. Bush paused and stuttered, and what someone said earlier about not having good skills in a debate doesn't affect a president's ability to lead. Contrary to that, however, I think it most certainly does, for this shows that he cannot think on his feet without his advisors nearby, and we need a president who can make the right decisions in good enough time to be effective, and Bush just doesn't show that. And whenever Bush asked for an extra 30 seconds of rebuttal, he couldn't think of anything, or just repeated the same old rhetoric, too.

Kerry, however, missed a couple of chances to pin Bush down, so to speak. The most noteworthy of these times was at the last question before closing arguments, where Bush had his 30 second rebuttal. The question concerned nuclear proliferation and North Korea, but Bush switched to talking about Hussein, completely skipping the point of the argument. I think Kerry should have called him on the spot right there, pointing that this shows the narrow-minded personal agenda of Bush.

MikeDubreuil 01-10-2004 09:55

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
I think that Kerry won the debate. I thought many times Bush looked foolish in his answers. Either he couldn't find the correct words or he's made dumb faces. Surface level garbage aside, Bush was not good at attacking Kerry.

Bush persistanly said Kerry changes positions because of politics. However, he never gave a solid example. Something the Kerry campaign should focus on is that Kerry has changed positions. That's not due to politics, that is due to new intelligence. When we went to war with Iraq the intelligence was astonishly incorrect. Of course we want to go to war when the CIA is saying Saddam has biological weopons, weopons of mass destruction, and might start a nuclear program. However, once we realized that intelligence was incorrect Kerry changed how he felt about our invasion of Iraq, everyone did - except right wing nut jobs.

One thing I do agree with is that Kerry alluded to the fact that the Bush campaign is trying to make Americans see the situation in Iraq with rose colored glasses. This website has two great articles written by a soldier and a journalist currently in Iraq which gives you a better idea of the true state of Iraq.

Tytus Gerrish 01-10-2004 10:18

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
ok, i see lots of biast remarks and predisposition in this thead. im going to be as nutral as possible.

Kerry- spoke with determination and did not have to spend much time thinking about what he was going to say

Bush- Had a slight sence of humor witch was nice. though he speaks like he dosent know what hees talking about. Im not saying that he dosen't

Kerry- accused that troops were used to gaurd the oil assets in iraq. when they could have been used in other places where weapons could have been found.

Bush- Didn't defend that by saying that the troops were gauarding the oil so that it would still be there to rebuild Iraq's econmy. Infact I don't think it ever occured to him

kerry- had a Multitude of information to give and it easily flowed out of his mouth

Bush- seemed to have little to actually say , had troubble sayinjg it, and repeated it often

Kerry- made a few remarks that were in fact, not true

Bush- Made a few remarks that were in fact, not true

Kerry- Showed Love For Florida All right

Bush- also showed love for florida but when he did Kerry had already used up all the effectiveness of it

Kerry- Displayed his knoledge of the individual solders problems in iraq and pleded to equipt them with better armor

Bush- nearly completely avoided the subject

on a side note Don't you think its kinda stupid for Assualt weapons to be legal in this country while their trying to make it illegal to buy body armor?

kerry- defended himself with well thought out sentenses

Bush- defended himself with a few facts though he sounded like a child when he's in troubble and wines about his inosence.


kerry- Displayed how he wouls be a good leader

bush- Displayed How he was a good leader



While being as nutral as possible and considdering everything that both said and also realising where they were incorect and where they were correct. John kerry was in my opinion was the victor of the debate

CourtneyB 01-10-2004 10:41

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
Although im niether fan, id say that Kerry won the debate, just because hes a better speaker than Bush. I think Kerry was a smart aleck yesturday. Did anyone notice, that they never showed Kerry's facial expressions as bush was talking? But when Kerry was talking theyd have a split screen where theyd show both Kerry and Bush. I think Nadar should be in this debate. He'd kick butt. Bush nor Kerry should win presidency. Its not like theyll ever keep their promises of what they will do if they win. I think its time for the U.S to have a girl president.
-Court-

Jeff Rodriguez 01-10-2004 11:08

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
OK, my first question to everyone is: Did you watch the debate on a network, or did you watch it on C-Span? The C-Span feed never changed camera angles and always showed a split screen of the candidates. I have talked to several people who watched a network broadcast, which switched camera angles. Watching the split screen lets you see the candidates initial reactions to each other.
In the future, please watch the C-Span feed.

What stood out the most to me was the question about Kerry accusing Bush of lying about the WMDs in Iraq. To Kerry's discredit, he didn't use the work 'lye', making his point weaker. He should use strong words on his strong beliefs, which, I think, this is one of. To Bush's discredit, he didn't respond to the question. He responded by saying that Kerry flip-flops. He didn't answer any of the allegations. Big mistake.

Again, the same think happened when asked about preemptive military actions. One of Karry's main points was that Bush didn't use US troops to capture Osama Bin Laden. Instead, he used Afghanis warlords. Again, Bush didn't respond to Kerry. He repeated himself, stating that Saddam was a threat and would have had WMDs. He didn't answer Kerry's allegations. Strike 2.

On the other side, Kerry didn't elaborate much on his plans. This has already been discussed so there's no reason to go into it more. He did plug his website, though, and refer people there to fond more answers.

During the question about homeland security, Bush seemed to be using scare tactics on the American people, stating that the Patriot Act needs to be renewed or else we'll get attacked again. Scare tactics don't sit well with me.

And perhaps the biggest disagreement between the two of the night, North Korea. Kerry wants Bilateral talks, Bush wants six point talks and use China's leverage. It's up to you to decide which plan you think would be best.

Again, please watch the C-Span feeds of debates.

MikeDubreuil 01-10-2004 11:11

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

Originally Posted by Ogre
OK, my first question to everyone is: Did you watch the debate on a network, or did you watch it on C-Span? The C-Span feed never changed camera angles and always showed a split screen of the candidates. I have talked to several people who watched a network broadcast, which switched camera angles. Watching the split screen lets you see the candidates initial reactions to each other.
In the future, please watch the C-Span feed.

I watched a network broadcast. I forgot which network; however, they did show split screens. John Kerry was able to use note taking as an effective tool in making him not appear to react to Bush's statement. While Kerry spoke George Bush stood there making faces and drinking out of an empty water cup.

Greg Ross 01-10-2004 11:59

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

Originally Posted by JosephM
Well, besides my democart bias, the thing is that when your presdient gets the date for 9/11 wrong (9/10 according to him) you start to worry.

His exact words (according to MSNBC's rush transcript) were:
Quote:

That wasn‘t going to work. That‘s kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place.
He was referring to the way things were prior to September 11, 2001.

Joe Ross 01-10-2004 12:15

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
[quote=gwross]His exact words (according to MSNBC's rush transcript) were:
Quote:

That wasn‘t going to work. That‘s kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place.[/quote
He was referring to the way things were prior to September 11, 2001.
But, pre-September 11th would have just as accurate (or more accurate), unless he was implying that things were different on September 10th.

I definetly think that Kerry did a better job. Bush did great at his convention, but I don't think that carried through.

I'm not voting for either, though.

Greg Ross 01-10-2004 12:18

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

Originally Posted by Ogre
To Kerry's discredit, he didn't use the work ['lie'], making his point weaker. He should use strong words on his strong beliefs, which, I think, this is one of.

Using inflammatory, loaded words like "lie", "lying", "liar", etc. may appeal to Kerry supporters, but it tends to repulse undecideds and marginal Bush supporters. (I don't think that's what Kerry wants to do is it? Doesn't he want to convince those people?)

Quote:

To Bush's discredit, he didn't respond to the question. He responded by saying that Kerry flip-flops. He didn't answer any of the allegations. Big mistake.
Yeah, I noticed that too. It's a politician/campaign thing. :shrug:

Quote:

Again, please watch the C-Span feeds of debates.
I think I need a few more good reasons before I decide to spend my money on cable. :)

Greg Ross 01-10-2004 13:19

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

Originally Posted by Joe Ross
But, pre-September 11th would have just as accurate (or more accurate), unless he was implying that things were different on September 10th.

True. But I think he simply stumbled in his word choice between "pre-September 11th mentality" and "September 10th mentality". Do you know anyone who makes similar speaking errors? I do, and I love her very much. ;)

Quote:

I definetly think that Kerry did a better job. Bush did great at his convention, but I don't think that carried through.
I agree that Kerry is a more polished extemporaneous speaker, but in no way has he convinced me I should vote for him.

Quote:

I'm not voting for either, though.
One of them is going to win (he stated categorically.) Does it really make no difference at all to you which one wins? If you vote for neither, you are, in essence, ceding your vote to someone who disagrees with you.

Joe Matt 01-10-2004 13:49

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

Originally Posted by gwross
True. But I think he simply stumbled in his word choice between "pre-September 11th mentality" and "September 10th mentality". Do you know anyone who makes similar speaking errors? I do, and I love her very much. ;)

While true, when you are running for reelection and your main point is homeland security and the terrorist attacks, you don't mess up the date. It's like FDR messing up saying December 6th was a day to live in infamy.

Zzyzx 01-10-2004 16:51

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
I believe Kerry had an advantage over Bush in yesterday's debate.

Bush seemed agitated at times, almost angry. Kerry seemed to be on the ball throughout the debate. However, It seemed (to me, at least) that both of them avoided the question asked, and instead started talking about Iraq or tax cuts.

We'll see who has won in November.

Joshua May 01-10-2004 18:31

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

Originally Posted by Zzyzx
Bush seemed agitated at times, almost angry.

I picked up on that, too, he didn't seem to like sitting there and being attacked like that, and then he couldn't come up with anything to defend himself.

JoeXIII'007 01-10-2004 21:46

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

Joshua May 01-10-2004 21:50

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
The Princeton Review actually rated the candidate's speaking level to a grade school scale, based on their closing arguments. They did this all the way back to Lincoln. (11th grade) Bush's was at a 6th grade level (same as 2000), and Kerry was at a 7th grade level, while Gore in 2000 got an 8th grade rating.

Cory 01-10-2004 21:57

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

Originally Posted by Joshua May
The Princeton Review actually rated the candidate's speaking level to a grade school scale, based on their closing arguments. They did this all the way back to Lincoln. (11th grade) Bush's was at a 6th grade level (same as 2000), and Kerry was at a 7th grade level, while Gore in 2000 got an 8th grade rating.

I find that very hard to believe. I don't know many 6th graders that could deliver a speech as well as Kerry, or others could, even in a debate format with nothing prepared beforehand

Aignam 01-10-2004 22:07

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

Originally Posted by Cory
I find that very hard to believe. I don't know many 6th graders that could deliver a speech as well as Kerry, or others could, even in a debate format with nothing prepared beforehand

Yeah, something tells me that the Princeton Review is a bit off their mark with this one...I mean, neither candidate is overwhemingly impressive in their oratorial skills, but c'mon, a 7th grader?

In any event, the Vice-Presidential debate should prove much more appealing for those in search of a good debate.

Joe Ross 01-10-2004 22:31

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
Here are the readability scores for both candidates closing remarks using several well known methods.

Kerry:
Kincaid: 5.8
ARI: 5.5
Coleman-Liau: 7.8
Flesch Index: 81.9
Fog Index: 9.3
Lix: 32.0 = below school year 5
SMOG-Grading: 8.9

Bush:
Kincaid: 5.0
ARI: 4.6
Coleman-Liau: 9.8
Flesch Index: 78.8
Fog Index: 8.5
Lix: 33.4 = below school year 5
SMOG-Grading: 8.8

You can google for those different readability indexes if you are interested in how they are derived.

David Kelly 02-10-2004 00:39

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
Kerry did quite a good job debating himself last night and the other positions he's held

Bill Gold 02-10-2004 04:06

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

Originally Posted by David Kelly
Kerry did quite a good job debating himself last night and the other positions he's held

It’s a flip-flop when Kerry and Democrats change their minds, yet it’s wholly ignored or referred to as revising one’s standpoint when Bush or Republicans change their minds on an issue? You’re starting to scare me into thinking you’re actually falling for that crap David.

Two right wing links deserve two left wing ones… I read/watched yours; you should do me the complimentary favor.

http://www.compassiongate.com/promises/
http://www.americanprogressaction.or...JcP7H&b=118263

Maybe we can agree that both candidates changed their minds on lots of different issues, and leave it at that? It’d be much more constructive to talk about their actual platforms, instead of dwelling on the past.

Adam Y. 02-10-2004 18:54

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

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.
Kerry did the same thing. He just repeated differnt words over and over again. Please don't think it was just the one candidate.
Quote:

Tax cuts provided the bulk of the tax "relief" to
higher income Americans.
I always wondered about this. The place where middle and lower class Americans get hit the hardest is with the state taxes. Even this websites states this but can the federal government do anything with the states tax system?

Tristan Lall 03-10-2004 00:00

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

Originally Posted by Adam Y.
The place where middle and lower class Americans get hit the hardest is with the state taxes. Even this websites states this but can the federal government do anything with the states tax system?

Well, that's interesting; In the U.S., drinking age limits are set by the states individualy--but nation-wide, there's a minimum age of 21. Why? Because the federal government exerts a little pressure on the states--"21, or we take away your cut of gas tax revenue" (or something like that...the exact details escape me). So yes, the federal goverment can squeeze the states in that sort of way, by threatening to reduce or remove some subsidy or another that the states receive. They can't exactly legislate away state taxes, though.

On another note, I keep thinking about what people don't get about this flip-flopping issue: the fact that it is (in theory) a perfectly logical approach.
Quote:

Logical? Not true! It's indecision, and we can't have that in a strong, fearless leader!
Enough of the complaining. If you have an opinion (say, you believe that there are weapons of an unusually destructive sort in Saddam Hussein's basement) and you gather some evidence (like marching in and taking over his basement, and subjecting it to a thorough search), and the overwhelming majority of the evidence doesn't support the initial belief...why do you still believe it? But I used a Bush example, and he doesn't flip-flop. So let's take a Kerry example.
Quote:

He voted for the war, then he voted against it.
That's right; but he went through the same process. He believed that the war was justified, due to an oppressive leader, and some assurances from other branches of government (and votes for it). He then gathered some evidence (like watching what Bush is doing, and what Saddam Hussein is doing, and reading the morning intelligence briefs) and finds that the notion of further increasing government spending on the war is not exactly supported by the evidence (maybe influenced by his sense of fiscal responsibility, in whatever small and insignificant measure it exists in a Democrat), and votes against the $87 billion dollars. He is then vilified as a "flip-flopper".

That series of steps described above had damned well better sound familiar to most people--it's called the scientific method, and you were supposed to understand it in elementary school (eighth grade, at the latest, where I come from). Like arithmetic is to mathematics as a whole, it's a fundamental concept in the sciences--but like arithmetic, it is wholly applicable to everyday life. Substitute hypothesis for belief (similar, but less structured), do an experiment (one way to get evidence) and draw conclusions, with which you modify the hypothesis (or belief). It's the same thing, and John Kerry, whether he's familiar with the concept or not, has applied it to at least one important issue as a senator. Whether Kerry is right or wrong, he's apparently calling it as he sees it (if his explanations during the debate were any indication), and is being picked on by the ignorant and the blatantly partisan for applying a logically consistent strategy to his decisions. Mr. Bush got as far as collecting evidence, but he seems to have drawn a different conclusion. That's fair enough (he's entitled to do so), but why then has he changed his explanation of his original motivation so many times? WMD, chase the bad man, institute democracy, get those terrorists, etc.; all potentially valid, but he never claims to have used as his primary justification to go to war any combination of the above--it's always one or the other. That raises questions about his sincerity, irrespective of the validity of any or all of those reasons. It isn't proper to change a hypothesis ex post facto, and insist that it hasn't changed, and has always been that way. It is proper to change your mind when new evidence comes to light. That's why a wrongful conviction can be overturned; that's why hypotheses like the phlogiston theory of heat are dead and buried; that's how we try to right our wrongs.

Now, before someone jumps on me with some incident of flip-floppery that doesn't fit the pattern, I have another possible scenario that may suffice as an explanation. Maybe Kerry is sucking up to his audience:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Saturday Night Live
That is not flip-flopping, that is pandering, and America deserves a president who knows the difference.

This is a very valid explanation for some of the alleged flip-flops. Pandering (e.g. to pro-/anti-war crowds) is typical of politicians, expected of politicians, and largely distasteful. America ought to itself know the difference.

Adam Y. 04-10-2004 07:40

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

On another note, I keep thinking about what people don't get about this flip-flopping issue: the fact that it is (in theory) a perfectly logical approach.
It really makes perfect sense why Kerry has trouble with his record. It's because he works in congress. It's a lot harder to form a record when you have to be nuanced and not form any enemies. A governor usually makes yes or no descisions. The only other president that was a senator was Kennedy.
Quote:

Well, that's interesting; In the U.S., drinking age limits are set by the states individualy--but nation-wide, there's a minimum age of 21. Why? Because the federal government exerts a little pressure on the states--"21, or we take away your cut of gas tax revenue" (or something like that...the exact details escape me). So yes, the federal goverment can squeeze the states in that sort of way, by threatening to reduce or remove some subsidy or another that the states receive. They can't exactly legislate away state taxes, though.
Thanks. I guess that is the only way.

Joe Matt 04-10-2004 08:52

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
Here's a /. article on how Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq.

http://politics.slashdot.org/politic...id=226&tid=103

Bill Gold 09-10-2004 07:02

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
I didn’t want to start a new thread on political issues, but if moderators want to split this off that’s fine by me.

President Bush seems to have an uncanny knack for counting his chickens before they hatch (and he doesn’t even want to use the stem cells from the ones that don’t hatch for medical research, either*).

In their first debate he famously nit-pickingly corrected Kerry by warning him not to forget Poland in the “Coalition of the Willing.” Just days later Poland announced a time table for pulling all of their troops out of Iraq.

In their second debate President Bush held up Afghanistan as if it were some sort of model of how we can succeed in impressing democracy upon people. This morning the 15 candidates campaigning against interim Prime Minister Hamid Karzai have denounced Afghanistan’s elections as fraudulent and illegitimate. This doesn’t bode well for the current administration, if this is any indication of how elections might occur in Iraq in January (assuming they aren’t delayed or cancelled entirely due to violence and instability).

What claim or statement will backfire on him next Wednesday?

* - This zinger has been brought to you in whole by the one and only Jim Gold!

Jack Jones 09-10-2004 07:59

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

Adam Y. 09-10-2004 08:52

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

In their first debate he famously nit-pickingly corrected Kerry by warning him not to forget Poland in the “Coalition of the Willing.” Just days later Poland announced a time table for pulling all of their troops out of Iraq.
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.

Eugenia Gabrielov 09-10-2004 11:46

Re: Who won the U.S. Presidential Debate? (Sept. 30)
 
My posting history is enough for anyone to know who I would think won. I will leave it at that.

This is another political thread about how much Kerry or Bush is an idiot and how the country will be in shambles if one or the other is elected. Thus warned: let me take Tytus's fine example (seriously, he has the neutrality thing well done I believe) and attempt to analyze.

Stage presence:
Debate 1) President Bush was nervous and Senator Kerry didn't appear nervous.
Debate 2) President Bush was much more confident, Senator Kerry remained roughly the same.

Information Flow:
Debate 1) President Bush stated some true and untrue facts. Senator Kerry stated some true and untrue facts.
Debate 2) President Bush stated some true and untrue facts, Senator Kerry stated some true and untrue facts.

Demeanor:
Debate 1) President Bush attacked Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry attacked President Bush.
Debate 2) President Bush attacked Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry attacked President Bush.

"Who won" is merely a question of what side you vote for. I haven't seen deviation from original party standpoints since we started debating this election on Chief Delphi. Despite lead changes, which are also biased, I feel it is more appropriate to view these debates as a form of education on President Bush's and Sentor Kerry's plans and platforms. My biggest interest as well as what my family has told me is domestic issues, which will be discussed in the final debate. I look forward to it.

Tristan Lall 09-10-2004 14:07

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

Incidentally, regarding Canada, it is disingenuous to state that "a government committee decides how many hip replacements there will be every year". It isn't a matter of the government putting down a number, and the surgeons following it--it is a matter of the surgeons doing their procedures, and the government keeping track of the number performed, then budgeting resources to cover the cost of about the same number of procedures in the next year. In essence, they are fundamentally in touch with the needs of the patients, rather than conceiving of arbitrary funding formulae. Because of the larger influence of government, the public healthcare system requires patients to take a place in line and wait for their (major) procedures, rather than paying their way to the front of the line (as is often possible in America, with private clinics and the like). Of course, if it is medically necessary to have a procedure performed forthwith, it is done (and still paid for by the government) without any further questions asked. Waiting in line may be frustrating and painful, but consider that by paying your way ahead, you're simply prolonging the same situation in those who cannot afford to jump the line. (Note that partaking of the services of a private clinic is the same, since it could just as well perform the procedure on a poor person, as on a rich one.) This isn't just a matter of liberalism or conservatism, it's most importantly a matter of ethics.

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--the American politicians talk nonchalantly about millions of people without health insurance, people who, if faced with a life-threatening condition, would likely be bankrupted by the cost. Perhaps those people are fools, gambling that they will never be ill, and not planning for that strong possibility. More likely, they are reasonable people, who cannot afford to pay for it.


Quote:

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

The anti-taxation spirit of the Boston Tea Party lives on in America, though there is no longer a monarchy that amasses its revenue from exploitation of the colonies; the vehemence of it all is amusing, but rather disturbing at the same time. They ought to be happy that they're rich. They ought to realize that it won't kill them to reduce their standard of living slightly, so that America can reduce the rampant poverty that plagues its cities. Perhaps they should learn to suck it up and pay, because getting cheated by a few who defraud social programs is preferable to forcing innocent, but nevertheless poor people to live in a ghetto. Once again, it is a question of ensuring a minimum standard of living for all--and if it means taxing the rich, or even the middle class to achieve that standard, so be it.

And Jack, regarding this:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Jones
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.

I'm sure that you have evidence of the very specific statements you made above. For example, show that "Teresa prefers Heinz to Kerry"--if it's obvious, you've probably good ironclad proof. Indeed, enlighten us as to approximately "[h]ow many in that audience didn’t look at Laura and just know she loves George?" I suspect that the rationale behind these statements is approximately equivalent to the rationale that Bush is unfit to lead, because he nearly choked on a pretzel, or fell off of a Segway. In other words, it's just stupid.

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