OT: Debate
 

Ok, I guess I'm right along the line of a political thread here, but I felt the need to post something about the US Presidential Debate.

I watched it with a large group in my apartment complex, and we had a Law Professor from Univ. of Wisconsin who was visiting campus give a talk afterward, on Western political philosophies from Plato onward (interesting, but a bit irrelevant, I thought).

Anyway, before watching it, I thought both of them would do about the same in this debate, and there wouldn't be much change. Then during the debate, I was wondering if Bush even prepared for it at all. From a pure debating standpoint, disregarding the politics behind everything, I think Kerry utterly destroyed Bush. He was assertive and articulate, while Bush stumbled through what I think should have been easy targets. Both managed to sound like broken records throughout the whole thing, but Kerry seemed to hide it better. Towards the end, there was a particularly bad moment when Bush was supposed to be offering a rebuttal on a position with North Korea, where he instead switched back to a scripted "We must stay the course in Iraq," a complete non-sequitur, and it confused just about everyone in the room.

So far the "analysis" I have seen from the debate has pretty much two camps: Democrats who were iffy on voting for Kerry now having a stronger opinion in favor of Kerry, and staunch Bush supporters who seem to have turned a blind eye to all the obvious blunders he made in the debate, and are still staunch supporters. We'll see if that changes in the next few days, but I just think it's sad that it has become so polarized that people are not being swayed in either direction. It's becoming almost a dogma, you must support one candidate, and not waver in that choice, ever.

Re: OT: Debate
 

I was fully expecting kerry to get beat by bush in this debate, bush was far more articulate in his debates against Ann Richards... But You could see right on thier faces that bush was twitching and getting fustrated and not keeping himself calm. There was a few times where bush snapped his head to look at kerry too that really caught my attention.

I think bush will pull it together more in the second debate and we might see him debate seriously. but who knows. I support john kerry, but I'm not expecting a win for john kerry either.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Political debate is practically a hobby for some people here. Don't worry about starting one, go right ahead.

Re: OT: Debate
 

To be honest, I could care less about this debate or any debate.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Same here! like ALL of them they say what they need to to get the job (no new tax's) then turn around and do it anyway http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

Re: OT: Debate
 

*whew* Im glad to hear you say that. I was afraid it might have changed your stance. BE resolute. Be determined. In the face of anything. (just like Bush)

Re: OT: Debate
 

Over the past year I have come to beleive that, apparently, a majority of voters in the US are either

1) Intentionally ignorant - in that they consciously avoid learning the facts
2) Lacking in basic logic and reasoning skills (ie: stupid) - in that they cannot perform the most basic reasoning to understand where things have gone wrong and cannot but fall prey to the most base "big lies"

There are very few "laws" in international relations. One of them is that balances form against threats. The US is NO LONGER respected, or viewed as a "city on a hill" for other peoples and nations to aspire to, politically or otherwise.

The US is now viewed by the majority of people in the world as a greater threat to world peace than anything else.

This will inevitably lead to the abandonment/destruction of the post-WWII order which led to historically unprecedented economic and democratic growth worldwide, and the formation of international coalitions against the US.

Our children, and our childrens' children will reap the rewards of Bush's unilateralism and pre-emption. Never in the history of the US have we destroyed so much good will in so short a time for so specious a reason.

Having Saddam Hussein out of power is a good thing. The destruction of the entire post War system of alliances, friendship, and prosperity was not, and the cost of the latter far outweighs the benefit of the former.

Alarik

Ps: Because people will inevitably misquote me (for in the Orwellian environment in which we live in, where lies and stupidity are given more credence than the truth, and dissent is treason, to misquote is a weapon), let me just say that if this conversation had taken place a few years ago, I would have said nothing. I almost voted for Reagan, I would have voted for McCain or perhaps Bush senior, and I might have even given Bush junior a pass if he had changed or admitted even a few things - or got out from under the wings of the NeoCons. But the tactics, arrogance, underhandedness, and everything else that has ocurred has led me to the inevitable conclusion that we are at such a crucial crossroads in the history of the nation and the world that to not speak out now is a greater sin than to offend. So, sorry if I offend anyone. But not that sorry. Wake up and smell the danger lest we sit obligingly by while the world our parents built is lost to the worst reactionary dogma imaginable.

Re: OT: Debate
 

I too am surprised how many americans are content with "Saddam is out of power and that is good" without asking what it has costed. Everyone seems to forget that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMDs, and with his actions Bush has not destroyed anti-american terrorism, he has effectively supported it.

The same holds true for these numerous new american laws to increase "national security". Is it really worth to gain a tiny bit of security (which is even debatable) when having to pay with for it with a lot of personal freedom? I always have thought freedom had a higher value in the USA.

The aim might be good, but thinking - does anyone do it? - must not stop there. History is full of catastrophies caused by people with best intentions.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Well I was hoping this would stay on the topic of the debate itself... but I guess a degeneration into a discussion of politics in general is inevitable.

After letting the analysts have their time to think about the debate, I think it's a little bit funny that a lot of the more "conservative" outlets are reporting that the debate was a draw, while the "undecided" and "liberal" outlets are reporting that Kerry won. There's little said on Bush gems such as:

"I know how the world works!"

"Of course we're after Saddam. I mean bin Laden."

"We've aleady sanctioned Iran. We can't sanction them any more."

And the previously mentioned gaffee where he responded to a comment about dealing with North Korea and nuclear proliforation by saying "we must stay the course in Iraq."

Political beliefs aside, I fail to see how anyone can believe Bush did a good job in this debate with those blatantly obvious mistakes, and the less-than-Presidential reactions to Kerry's comments. Especially when the debate was centered on the Iraq War and terrorism, which are supposed to be Bush's "strengths". If he can't debate well on his strong points, what chance does he have on domestic issues?

Re: OT: Debate
 

That is what I meant - people do not think about facts any more to arrive at a decision. So it does not make sense to make debates.
Most people have their political beliefs, like a religion, and no debate will change it, and even if one of the candidates would start growing horns and hooves and smell of sulfur the majority of his supporters would not budge. Idiots are ruling this world...

Re: OT: Debate
 

I though Bush looked like a chimp caught in the headlights. I thought Kerry looked like Frankenstein (but with the good brain)

I can't wait for the Edwards/Cheney debate. It'll be an Evil CEO vs. Slick Attorney man. I'm getting that oily feeling already!

Re: OT: Debate
 

Speaking of which, did anyone catch Bush's "As the leader of the world..." freudian?

Re: OT: Debate
 

I watched some exerpts (I live in europe, us presidential debates are not all that much news) and bush definetly looked kinda baffled at times by what kerry said, I think the man has a total belief in what he did was the right thing to do and anyone who thinks something else must have a completely skewed view of the world (at least that's my impression because nobody can tell so many lies and so much bull****, except when he is not aware himself it are lies or bull****.)

his spindoctors have done a bad job this time, I definetly expected him to do better.

Re: OT: Debate
 

No Ammount of Spin doctoring can train a monkey to be an effective mouth piece http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: OT: Debate
 

I say we revolt! Vote for no one, depose Bush, execute politicians, and find someone who's actually qualified to lead a country! Who's that you may ask?? Well, me of course! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I'd be quite happy to travel down to the States and lead your country for you. Oh wait, foreigners aren't allowed to be president are they? Damn...well we can change that. My first official act will be to surrender the US....to CANADA!! [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Flag_Canada.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Flag_Canada.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Flag_Canada.gif[/img] http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT: Debate
 

Aren't these political thread suppose to goto the general forum?? Anyways Govener Bushey, I swear hes a studdering monkey. This is how he sounded I....uh....and..um. He would take an extra 30 seconds and not explain anything, And yet according to an unbaised poll i've looked at Bushey is still ahead overall the US.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Nahh they can stay in SEIV. Doesnt matter here.
Well at least he doesnt "flip flop" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif He stays resolute to his convictions no matter what anyone says, no matter what anyone proves, and no matter what he based his judgement on has fallen by the wayside since then. THATS what we need in a president. Fantacism.

Im not voting for Kerry as much as Im voting against Bush.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Youre working hard to put food on your family. -George Bush Jr.

Don't vote for either. Get funding for the Green party.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Debates are just forums for those participating to spread their views. They mean nothing past the soap box they stand on.

Re: OT: Debate
 

WOW I swear this is the reason the democrats need to hit back on the flip flop thing. BUSHEY FLIPED TOOOOOOO At first he was against Home LAnd sequrity but was swayed by Congressional Leadership. Thier were a few taxes that he supported but was stopped by his rich friends. IS that who you really want running the country. A person who can be pushed over by Republican Leadership or Big Bizness

Re: OT: Debate
 

I already beat you to that joke. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

I know who I'd vote for: http://www.drunkduck.com/Culture_Shock/

Re: OT: Debate
 

I still want to see a five-way debate with Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader included. It is very unlikely to happen this year, but maybe in 2008.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Damned 2 party, corporate-controlled system...

Re: OT: Debate
 

I want to see Nader debate these too. Liberal Nader is a walking hypocrite with his endorsements from the conservative Reform party.

But Anyone who dares to think this is a draw or bush won needs to stop taking LSD or huffing clorine tablets for the pool. Bush did no better than Al Gore or Dan Quayle this time.

But on quotes, when bush asked kerry "Do you think the soldiers in iraq died for a mistake?" Kerry should have shot back, flat and level, "No, they are dying for your mistake." and not say another word after that on that topic.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Never mind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: OT: Debate
 

Saecrh the web for a file named 4-28-03-bushvbush-hres.mov (if you google it you can find it on the first page that comes up) that settles the point on flipflopping for me, it's like if people change their minds it's a bad thing, imho people should be allowed to change their minds, wether for worse or better (and that also depends on your point of view) but if nobody changes their minds about anything we wouldnt even have to have any debates because everyones mind would already be set on whom they will vote (an it seems that is the case already for 80% of the americans, because they will not sway from their oh-so-beloved political party)

if you didnt notice i'm critisizing both sides here.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Yeah that was kindof the point I was making. Another word for "flip flop" would be flexible, another word for "determined" would be fanatical. Most of the flip-flops mentioned on Kerry sound pretty reasonable when you look at them. There were always changed situations, or changes to what was originally agreed on when he said he would go one way, or perfectly good details involved with changing his mind. Sounds like a good thing to me. Even if he WERE weak willed it would amount to listening to his advisors which would be a good balancing factor.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Considering that 62.5 Million people watched the Debate Thursday, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the effect Bush's performance had.

62.5 Million people got to watch Bush slouch over the podium, sneer, shuffle the same piece of paper over & over, stammer, studder, repeat "it's hard work" 11 times, and continuously link Saddam to 9/11 (despite Kerry pointing it out towards the end). On the other side those 62.5 million people got to see Kerry stand straight & proud all night, smile, respond sharply, and not repeat the same points over and over again.

Kerry acted like a President should, while Bush acted like a man who finally wasn't being sheltered in a small auditoriom with 5000 loalty-oath signing blind supporters. Being out in the real world can only hurt Bush more.

Bush's only hope now of not comming off as a complete stubborn incompetent boob is the Town Hall Debate, because that Last Debate on domestic issues is going to be a slaughterfest with Bush on the dinner table with an apple in his mouth.

Here piggy piggy piggy...

Re: OT: Debate
 

"Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops".

Looks like Poland isn't in Iraq for the long haul:

Poland could withdraw Iraq troops

Re: OT: Debate
 

I don't agree. I was a Bush supporter before the debate. Mostly because Kerry is such a slimey little toad that I can't stand him, but after seeing Bush debate the "issues" I am firmly back into the Undecided camp. I mean seriously, how can you vote for a President that comes across as a nitwit who has trouble tying his own shoes. I can't take anything Bush or Kerry says at face value since they both lie their teeth out to get the job.

Just once in this country I'd like to have a president that I could vote FOR instead of one that i'm just voting AGAINST in a desperate attempt to avoid the inevitable.

Re: OT: Debate
 

The "long haul" mght be the problem. For whatever reasons someone accepts as being why we are in Iraq, it would appear possible to say "we came, we won, we go home now". There doesnt seem to be a war to fight there anymore. There IS fighting but no war. Whatever reason there was for going in does not seem to be the reason to stay and fight. We are looking like the kid who doesnt want to leave the ballfield after the game is over, and is yelling at all the other kids who are going home.

Someone tried to bait me in another group by saying "Kerry has a plan for winning the war, by pulling out. And everyone knows thats NOT how to win a war". I replied, "of course it is. Say we won and go home". Maybe the problem is that Im in too many gaming newsGroups. Gamers tend to have a different idea of what the rules are for winning a war. I hope Bush isnt a game player.

Re: OT: Debate
 

If you COULD care less, how much do you care? 10%, 20%?

I suppose you mean that you couldn't care less. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

This misuse of English is one of my pet peeves, along with saying "quote, endquote, <quoted line>", instead of "quote <quoted line> endquote". Another one is "not available in all areas". Technically, this means that it is not available anywhere. What they mean is, "not available in SOME areas."

Re: OT: Debate
 

"not available in all areas" does not mean "not available anywhere," it means "not available everywhere." "not in all" != "none"

Re: OT: Debate
 

Technically, Greybeard is right with the grammar on this one Fyron. Since the "all" is inside the preposition, it is not directly affected by the not. A simple re-write gives: 'In all areas, not available.' So the correct way to say it would be 'not available in some areas.'

Re: OT: Debate
 

AHHHHHH GRAMER!!!!!! BAD FOR I, I r no like grammer, you make grammer thread, I r scared lolololol :lol:

Re: OT: Debate
 

After careful analysis of the debate, the candidates, their presentation, syntax, grammar, grasp of the problems and logic I have concluded that as a taxpaying voter, I lost.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Well, obviously you use your brain to think, this means you are one of the very few exceptions - look at how little the predictions have changed after this debate.

And I totally agree, the choice "neither of the above" is really missing in our current form of democracy.

Re: OT: Debate
 

One thing I've become tired of is this vietnam BS. I care morea bout what these candidates will do about the vets from that war than each others' war record. The entire campaign has focused on one war after another and now when I tune to fox news, it sounds like they are ramping up to cover a military incursion into Sudan.

Enough with the wars, america needs to build more and progress instead of constanty fighting. Even gamers know that if you keep fighting without shoring yourself up and expanding your resources that you'll pay for it.

I miss FDR's and JFK's grand speeches and visions. When it's done by candidates today, it sounds more like a gust of hot air...

Re: OT: Debate
 

Well I cant help but agree with that statement (but then I have a personal interest since I am one).

Re: OT: Debate
 

I thought Kerry showed that he's a good debater. However, he didn't really make any significant points to hurt Bush. He made a huge gaff when he talked about passing an international test (getting Kofi Anon's permission) before taking action to defend the US. This will come back to hurt him; big time.

Bush looked tired and didn't take the offensive. He should have focused on Kerry abysmal 20 year record in the Senate and his missing so many intelligence committee meetings. Also, he should have continued to show that Kerry doesn't really have any plans, but is just saying he could do better. I want to know HOW Kerry would do anything differently! I can guess, based on Kerry's past votes and inactivity, but he won't give specifics.

Even I could be a great leader if I could say that with what I know today, I would have acted differently. Duh...

I agree with the Democrat's campaign manager; the debate was a draw...

Re: OT: Debate
 

I think you've bought into one of the tactics of the bush campaign: lying about what Kerry said during the debate, and then repeating that until people beleive it to be the truth. It's a variation on the "big lie" tactic that Goebbels used to great effectiveness.

You're referring, I think to the new Bush ad called "Global Test."

That ad refers to Kerry's comment in the debate that a pre-emptive strike must pass "the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

The Bush ad called it the "Kerry doctrine," and asked: "So we must seek permission from foreign governments before protecting America?"

Kerry also said in the debate Thursday that he would not cede the United States' right to a pre-emptive strike and that he will "hunt and kill the terrorists wherever they are." Those comments are what the Kerry ad focused on.

So...I don't see how you can say that Kerry said anything about "getting Kofi Anon's permission"

For more see http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/..._ad/index.html

Re: OT: Debate
 

As alarikf has already pointed out, what Kerry actually said during the Debate and what the Bush Campaign would like you to believe he said are two different things.

Here's exactly what Kerry said. You can find the full Debate Transcript here (2440 Debate Transcript)

/Begin exerpt/

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.

Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet. But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.

You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.

You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.

/End exerpt/

This isn't about calling the Prime Minister of France and asking him 'pretty please, can America attack that country that hijacked one of our Planes'. This is not about asking for permission to defend America. This is about co-operating with the rest of the world; to understand the full consequences of your actions on other nations, and to have others trust you just as much as the American people do (or should).

At this point there's probably not one nation out there that trusts the current Bush Administration, and because of that lack of trust, the US will be 100% alone in any effort it takes to defend itself; and that includes striking pre-emtively.

Without trust, any further pre-emptive strike at this point by the Bush Administration would be construde as yet another self-serving & mistaken effort.

How much more latitude does anyone think the International Community will give the Bush Administration if it's given a 2nd Term and actually invades another country? The answer is little to none. The US has gone from savior to bully, and in the end every bully eventually gets slammed back. You could make a point that the resistance going on in Iraq is that pushing back, but magnify that by about 10,000 and you'll have an idea of what it'll be like if the International Community suddendly says "enough". Imagine how much worse things would get in the US if some of American's largest trading partners suddenly cut off all economic ties? What would happen to the US if the UN suddenly imposed sanctions against the US? No oil and no money mean an economic collapse and another Great Depression.

That's the road the US is on right now, and given enough time, that's the outcome the US is looking at if people don't wake up and replace the current American Administration. John Kerry may not be perfect (nobody in this world is), but he's infinetly better than Bush could ever hope to be. That 'doom & gloom' scenario I laid out may not happen during a 2nd Bush Term, but the possible fallout from such a 2nd Term (and the lingering effects on the Administrations comming afterwards) should be enough to scare the sh!t out of anyone who can think for themselves.

Re: OT: Debate
 

I'm surprised that anyone is still believing anything what Bush says after it is crystal clear that he has used blatant lies from the very beginning to start his Iraq war.

But this attitude - I am xxx party supporter therefore I will blindly believe anything that xxx says - is what leads to the typical behaviour of the candidates not to say anything about what they will do or change when they are elected. Like in this case, any clear statement surely will be blurred, distorted and taken out of context by the other side, presented as something utterly negative, and will be believed and repeated by the followers regardless of its total falseness.

Because such lies are tolerated so much, this lack of any significant statements will continue. Lies are the worst in political business, and as long as honesty is not a deceicive value for the voters, you get what you have.

Re: OT: Debate
 

The "could" or "couldn't" care less was actually the topic of Atlantic Monthly's "grammar section" a while back. Their conlcusion.... both ways were correct, if you use "couldn't". For example, you can say "I couldn't care less" and "I couldn't care more" and both of them mean the same things. (albiet slightly different in texture).

"I couldn't care more" means that the debates are so meaningless that it would be physically impossible for me to care more about them, which is an odd way of thinging about it in the present cultural climate.

I suspect that the positive view "I could care less" is actually ok also under similar somewhat weird definitions. The most important thing about language is that you are understood and that people know what you are talking about. "I could care less" matches that test for me.

On the plus side being overly concerned about "correct" grammar leads to some great comments, such as Churchill's "... that is something up with which I shall not put." When told he couldn't have dangling something or others (participles?).

Teal

Re: OT: Debate
 

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but...

Kerry used the term "global test", not "international test". I interpreted this in the context of the rest of his statements, and I did not interpret international anywhere.

Shamelessly taken from dictionary.com:
Ok, so obviously, he did not mean "spherical test", and he obviously did not say it in the context of computer science, so options 1 and 4 are automatically out. That leaves "worldwide" or "comprehensive". And in the context of everything else he said, it is clear to me that he meant "comprehensive". His entire point was that a President must be able to convince his own people completely that an action is necessary if he can ever hope to convince anyone that the action was right. Bush only managed to convince about 60% tops of the population that invading Iraq was a Good Thing(tm), and that percentage is drastically smaller now that many have realized that the pretenses for invasion were false. It also seems that a large majority of those who do still think it is a good thing are at least to some extent still convinced that Saddam Hussein == Terrorism, despite evidence that Saddam was one of the most powerful enemies to fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the Middle East.

So, yes, it was an unfortunate choice of words on Kerry's part, due to Bush's campaign managers' penchant for twisting and spinning everything to make Bush look like the greatest thing since sliced bread. That doesn't mean you should believe what comes out of their collective traps concerning Kerry. Listening to one side of the argument always leaves you with a distorted view of the whole issue, and that campaign is the master of distortions. Just look at how they destroyed McCain in 2000, spinned all their policies while in office (Clear Skies Initiative, anyone?), etc.

I'm not saying the Kerry campaign is innocent of this either. But they have been a lot more honest, which counts for a lot in my book.

Re: OT: Debate
 

I would say Edwards won Last night

and tie that in with Duelfer's report being released this week.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Edwards lost Last night, and tie that with Fox News.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Don't you mean Fox "news"?

Re: OT: Debate
 

Fox News is no better or worse than any other US news media... it is just unfairly biased in a different direction than most of them are... But yeah, lets all jump on the bandwagon and unfairly hold Fox to a higher standard than everyone else.

Re: OT: Debate
 

Umm, I'm a bit dense right now, but what connection am I supposed to make?

Feed me the information--I'll take whatever you say at face value. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

"I only watch TescoNet!"

Didn't you know? There's no such thing as liberal bias. Liberalism is pristine humanity's natural state, and he has to be corrupted to conservatism. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif