OT: Debate

[Will]

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.

[Azselendor]

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.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

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

[Atrocities]

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

[mottlee]

Atrocities said:
To be honest, I could care less about this debate or any 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

[Gandalf Parker]

Atrocities said:
To be honest, I could care less about this debate or any 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)

[AMF]

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.

[Greybeard]

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

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

I suppose you mean that you couldn't care less.

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."

[Fyron]

Greybeard said:
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."

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

[teal]

Greybeard said:

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

I suppose you mean that you couldn't care less.

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."

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