Presidential Debate Plz Discuss

George Bush is a moron. He was a par student, a below par buisness man, and a horrible president, and his speaking pretty much sums up exactly what he is, a facade of intelligence and civility.

I agree America is a two party country with very small magnified differences in the two whackjob parties we got BUT don't blame the system, blame the people. Chances are if you were born in 75% - 90% of the homes in America you to would have been quietly lulled into the dreamworld most Americans live in when it comes to polotics.

It would take something real big to change that .

And who can really blame them. Middle and Upper class people can only see their lives and how well things are for them. To those people this country is the most awesome country in the world, and the reason being, this government has worked well to make and keep it that way.

 

I agree Bush is definitely a subpar president. But I think people probably hate him for the wrong reasons. People use to love Clinton because I guess he was cool or whatever. Personally I dont think a president's personality is any reason to actually valid reason to vote for them. Either way, if anyone looked at Clinton's policies they are obviously all that liberal. But people seem to get the perception that he is this massively liberal guy based off of one fact, his public persona. The problem is not the system, per se, but the implementation. Captialism and communism are very good systems, neither has been implemented correctly. But maybe it is just a limitation of human nature. The system is partly responsible, in public schools, representation of political science (if there is any of all) is very exclusionary or just way too simplified. And in college, students look for quick cash, and take "easy" majors like B.A. because the lack of mathematics or hard science required to obtain a degree. American students taking much more englightening subjects like mathematics, physics, C.S., or engineering have been drastically decreasing for at least the last 10 years. I find it rather disquieting, because those subject help people become more analytical, as most of them concern deductive/inductive reasoning, expirimentation, and trying to find empirical evidence. The reason why the system is becoming a failure, is because America's as maybe a behavioral abberation just dont question things. And to be honest the school system encourages students to learn by rote, or immediate necessity, that critcial thinking is rarely ever developed. So that is the reason why alot ( not all) Americans tend to remain ignorant about many important subects

P.S. I apologize for the somewhat off topic reply, but I think it is all relative

 

I agree with you on all of those points. Elementary, Middle School and ESPECIALLY high schools in the US are horrible in the the way things are taught and what is actually taught. And I personally have been taking a trip around Northern jersey looking at many of the schools and the striking differance in the way things are done in all of them. individually. (Whoops posted too early)
I dont really wanna get into alll that cuz thats another topic.

Getting a little bit back on subject , while it is easy to say that the two parties are alike in many ways and its all a 'sham', if you don't watch yourself you end up forgetting that there are huge differences that will change the outcome of the future of the country / world. If Bush had not been elected and the system of democracy had not been cheated four years ago we wouldn't be in Iraq today, and our public standing among the rest of the world would have definitely been better.

That said. I would love to see a four or five party government in the US, but as of right now thats just dreams.

 

on the topic of bush hating, what are the right reasons? Because someones son is getting shot for no reason over in Iraq? Because of the poor economy leading into the average joe losing his job? Because of the increase in health care costs leading into a diabetic retiree not being able to afford their insulin (that and the constant sapping of SS funds)? This president has fucked up alot and has tried to make the public not notice by bringing attacks (warranted or not) to foreign soil. After all that, people are quick to forgive, sign a sheet saying your for him and won't ask any fucked questions, and go attend one of his speaking engagements and have the nerve to say afterwards with no pressure on him whatsoever "he sounded very nice, very articulate." If he's reelected, I am considering moving to anyone of the countries that I have studied the language/ culture of.

On the topic of schools, yes public schools aren't good right now. They are catering to lowest common denominator so that at least a percentage of those people will be able to pass these BS subsidized tests. That's fucked up and subsequently the reason why most everything I did/ do in school has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually learn. For every hour I had spent in school, I spend 4 studying things I feel I could use work on. Fuck the schools, people need to take their education onto themselves after elementary or go private school. Either way, your education is on you.

 

[ QUOTE ]
SgtRamrod said:

I don't know when the next debate is, but it will only get worse for Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry and Bush debate again next Thursday. Edwards and Cheney are scheduled to debate this Tuesday.

 

I know what you mean about BS majors, i was an engineering major, and we were pitched, oh you're a minority and you great in math you should do it.
Then i got through it and i wouldnt wish that on anyone, i only think people who really like it should do it. The dotcoms changed all that because lots of young people were making more money for knowing things that were less difficult ( progamming or management) so i realized that all that hard work doenst really pay . I dont even feel good about like i do helping inner city kids learn it.

I'm one of those though that thinks that kerry did win from the debate, by a small margin mainly because he came off as defining himself a bit more. Everyone assumed he was going to flop back and forth, but he ended really showing who he is and what he stands for. Bush has given us who he is throughout, so nothing stood out. His answers near the end started to lose steam because you see he kept pushing the same point to the point that he ran out of things to say .

 

[ QUOTE ]
And in college, students look for quick cash, and take "easy" majors like B.A. because the lack of mathematics or hard science required to obtain a degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm gonna have to disagree with this. I was an engineering major and switched to political science because I found that engineering wasn't the path I wanted to take, and a B.A. is in no way an 'easier' degree than a B.S. Sure, there's no math or hard science, but I've already had to write two forty-page papers on international relations, and it ain't exactly a cakewalk.

Secondly, that debate was garbage. I don't want to say anyone won, because they both did a poor job. Sure, Kerry seemed more polished, but he was evading questions left and right. Shit, he spent half of the time for the first question talking about Hurricane Ivan and how much he liked the moderator. Bush was getting hurt because as the incumbent he was constantly on the defensive. It's always easier to talk when you're attacking someone else. I see the choice now as a vote between a president with poor economic policies and Lurch. Oh, and before we get carried away with Bush-bashing, Kerry's been a Senator for twenty years and hasn't led or initiated a bill ever as far as I've seen. A guy who hasn't shown leadership for twenty years in politics wants to be the President? There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere.

As far as America only having two parties goes, that's not the people's fault, nor is it the parties' faults. It's in the system. The U.S. operates under a single-member district plurality electoral system, which gives the single representative seat in a district to the party with the largest percent of the vote. Therefore, the system encourages broad catch-all parties that can attain majorities. This leans towards a two-party system because the fringe is largely ignored, but it eliminates the need to form coalitions in the legislature. The tradeoff is between representation and government efficiency. Sure, we could have a proportional electoral system and more accurately represent the people, but it would lead the government to become even more gridlocked and inefficient than it already can be. France's third and fourth Republics were quite unstable due to proportional representation, but the government stabilized once it converted to a single-member district system. Besides, third parties DO have a purpose in the U.S. Oftentimes, they serve as the vehicle for a view the two main parties have ignored. An example of this is Ross Perot basing his platform around the problems of the national debt and deficit spending in '92. After these third parties bring a major problem or view to the forefront, the two main parties absorb the issue into their policy platforms and the third party recedes from the spotlight. Saying that the two parties ignore the people is silly. In actuality, candidates generally fulfill at least two thirds of their campaign promises. If you don't want the policy they're selling, don't buy it. If you don't like that they got into office, bummer, that's the system. If you don't like the system, leave the country. We subject ourselves willingly to the democratic rule in place, and talking out of our asses about it doesn't do any good.

 

Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

If the debates were a prizefight, Kerry won by a TKO. Stylistically, he came acroos as more Presidential than Bush. He undoubtedly seemed smarter, more articulate, and composed. Bush seemed antsy, testy, and petulent. He stammerred. He did not look cool under fire. His performance did not inspire confidence. It makes me think that Bush is the kind of guy who, if something terrible happened under his watch, would just as soon read My Pet Goat as respond to a crisis.

On substance, Bush lost even worse. The Iraq War is Bush's baby. Kerry could have been on the moon for the last four years and the situation over there wouldn't be any less fucked up. And yet all Bush wants to talk about is Kerry's position on Iraq. I understand why, but for anyone paying attention, it is absurd.

Kerry eloquently offered up a reasonable, thoughful, powerful critique of Bush's ill-fated, poorly planned, badly executed war.

We now know that the nuclear case against Saddam was always based on bullshit. Bush misled America and Congress about this war. Here's the straight dope from Paul Krugman:

"...as The Times confirmed last weekend, the Bush administration suppressed intelligence that might have raised doubts in Congress."

and

"The case for war rested crucially on one piece of evidence: Saddam's purchase of aluminum tubes that, according to Condoleezza Rice, were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." But the truth, never revealed to Congress, was that most of the government's experts considered the tubes unsuited for a nuclear program and identical to the tubes used by Iraq for other purposes. Yes, Virginia, we were misled into war."

Besides Iraq, Kerry was stronger on the other issues: Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, etc. Poor Bush. The people pulling his strings have not chosen a puppet possessed of the degee of sophistical talent neccessary to rhetorically polish the turd that is their foreign policy.

Oh, and the shit about Kerry not accomplishing anything in the Senate is a bunch of pap. Kerry did what Senators do in the U.S. He voted on issues and he talked. He has one of the best voting records in the Senate. And as Mr. Bush learned last Thursday, he can turn a phrase to powerful effect. He also got the ball rolling on the Iran-Contra affair, the BCCI bank scandal, and helped to normalize relations with Vietnam.

The idea that he was some kind of a "Bad Senator" is a line of attack that Bush and co. have been using against Kerry and it's silly. Does Kerry have anything tarnishing his record nearly as bad as Bush's War on Iraq, Bush's Nat'l Guard "service," Bush's economic record, Bush's environmental record, the Abu Grhaib prison scandal, the fact that Bush has created more amputees than jobs, etc? No, Kerry doesn't. Bush and co. lie about their records in all of these areas. Since we can't trust them about any of these things, why the fuck would we believe what they say about John Kerry?

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

I stand by my position that Kerry didn't do anything better in that debate than seem more polished. He had stronger stands on the issues? What? Kerry said we're spending too much in Iraq (which he incorrectly tallied around $200 billion) then goes on to say we're not providing our troops with enough equipment and need to provide more armor, humvees, etc. He also says we need to spend more on fire protection as well as police protection. The only things he said were that he was going to spend some more of the taxpayer's bankroll. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the U.S. already has an enormous deficit. Kerry's answer is to throw more money out. I'm sorry, I don't want to lose half of my paycheck to the government unless I'm getting universal health care. Don't think I support Bush, I just have strong distaste for both candidates and I'm tired of all this partisan ignorance. The fact is that no matter what side of the political spectrum one claims to be part of, one can still be a dumbass.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush and co. lie about their records in all of these areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true, then. We have an evil conservative empire in place in America with a puppet President at the head. Pulling his strings are a collection of diabolical figures ranging from corporate leaders to the Illuminati to a crazed Russian cosmonaut who desires only death to all who are not 'comrades'. Join us for the next thrilling Dan Brown novel!

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I don't want to lose half of my paycheck to the government unless I'm getting universal health care. Don't think I support Bush, I just have strong distaste for both candidates and I'm tired of all this partisan ignorance. The fact is that no matter what side of the political spectrum one claims to be part of, one can still be a dumbass.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's obvious you're too piss off to see straight snappy, wait until you get out of College.

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

Edwards got out class by Dick. Man, Dick was getting personal too and Edwards was looking at him like WTF did you just say bitch.

That was one boring ass debate though. YAWN. /versus/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

[ QUOTE ]
OffBrandNinja said:It's true, then. We have an evil conservative empire in place in America with a puppet President at the head. Pulling his strings are a collection of diabolical figures ranging from corporate leaders to the Illuminati to a crazed Russian cosmonaut who desires only death to all who are not 'comrades'. Join us for the next thrilling Dan Brown novel!

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this sarcasm? I give you a laundry list of horrors brought to life by the Bush Administration and you choose not to try to defend or address them, but instead respond with uninspired sarcasm?

I am not particularly partisan. I only support the Democrats because they are the only party that can defeat the Republican party that has so corrupted the country's politics.

I am surprised that you are a PoliSci student. I have lived in college towns and have a political science degree myself. The vast majority of people in academia (at least the social sciences) are outraged by Bush and his cronies. Do you go to a Bob Jones University-type school down there in Louisiana?

Most of the academics I've talked to feel that Bush and his posse are basically trying to roll back the twentieth century and bring about a new Guilded Age.

Unions? Bye. Consumer protection? Nice knowing you. Social Security? Just a wasteful handout that we can't afford anymore. Sorry retirees. Let's bring back the Alien and Sedition Act while we're at it. Church and State? Separate no longer.

The modern Republican Party, far from being the party of Lincoln, pushes an agenda that flies in the face of the values of the Enlightenment, Modernity, and social justice. And that's before I even get started on Iraq.

And yes, the neoconservatives and corporate America do conspire to manipulate the political system and legally bribe candidates (via our absurd campaign finance system). We are fucked if we do not change course. John Kerry may not be perfect, but we already know what Bush is all about. Kerry could not be worse.

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

I listened to the debates last night on the radio, followed by Michael Savage. The debate was okay, but it was pretty subpar compared to what it should've been. Plus people seem to be divided on who won. Cheney seemed to have been much more articulate than Bush, and did a fine job representing himself. However there was certainly alot of dodging by both V.P.s.

Anyway, the debate was boring, only because they dont address issue I want to hear about. The war in Iraq is mostly about spreading western values to that region and is a direct action in the U.S. support of Israel. Neither party would ever address that, perhaps it is too "real" for such a toy forum

Either way, I would have loved to hear someone discuss technology and science, which has been an intergal part of my life since I started college ( when I was 14). Of course it is not discussed. Both parties have constituents who are very appreshensive about technology, so the issue is not discuss.

I consider myself a libertarian. I know there is a philosophical and political version. but the libertarian party seems to be more of a thinking man's party, where solutions seem to be based off of more logic. Both republicans and democrats seem to pander to the emotional convictions of their constiuents. And since the policies of the "Big Two" seemed to be based on emotions as opposed to efficiency, you can expect stagnation.

The republican party is nothing more than a bunch of angry Christain fundementalist, who more or less adopted the party because social pluralism and integration seemed to be different from the bible. Of course this is all interpretive.

As far as democrats are concerned, they tout themselves as being socially progressive. But honestly it is a "feel good party". Many (not all, because I will no generalize), seem to like pandering to social groups negative stereotypes in the name of keeping some level of "diversity". However, sometimes I feel that they obscure many real measures to erradicate these things, because of political correctness. The motto is "dont talk about classism or racism". This seem to mean that because you dont talk about it in public, that means you arent a racist or confirm to the principals of market facism. Either way, most "liberals" probably dont take these issues very seriously, and just seem to think some P.C speak is just going to make these problems go away.

Either way, I'll be voting for the libertarian electorate, Michael Badnarik. I cant fathom voting for either party, because they are both full of shit. I dont claim to know it all, but I know that putting emotions in politics is an all around bad idea.


end rant

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

No, I don't like Bush. However, we've all already heard that 'laundry list of horrors' a million and one times. What upsets me is that you point at Bush and say the Republican party is trash, but Bush is hardly a good representative example. There are plenty of decent Republican politicians, John McCain for one. I agree that Bush isn't a decent president by most expectations, and I'm not voting for him in the upcoming election. I just see all these rants on our government being manipulative and diabolical as nothing more than conspiracy theories.

By the way, Social Security can't be saved unless it's reformed, which no party wants to do because it's practically political suicide. Also, the gay marriage amendment is nothing more than a poor man's political ploy by Bush to divide the nation on partisan grounds. I'd say it's succeeded in doing that.

To set the record straight, I don't agree with virtually anything Bush has done as President. I don't like his economic policies (it's ridiculous to assume that a CEO can't live on just a couple million dollars), I don't like what he's done to the U.S. diplomatic relations, and I never liked the war in Iraq. But, I don't think pointless bitching and personal attacks do any good at all. Maybe if the focus of the Democratic party platform wasn't so much anti-Bush, but more about doing what's best for America, we'd have a better Democratic candidate choice than Kerry. That's my take.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you go to a Bob Jones University-type school down there in Louisiana?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I go to Tulane University in New Orleans. Thanks though, I always love it when people think I'm an ignorant bastard.

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

[ QUOTE ]
Aoiscrub1979 said: Anyway, the debate was boring, only because they dont address issue I want to hear about. The war in Iraq is mostly about spreading western values to that region and is a direct action in the U.S. support of Israel. Neither party would ever address that, perhaps it is too "real" for such a toy forum

[/ QUOTE ]

American support of Israel is the 300 lb gorilla in the room that everyone refuses to acknowledge. Thank the Israeli lobby for that. Pro-Israeli groups are some of the top financers of both parties and they also influence the American media. They are the third rail of American Politics. Until we address the campaign finance system and our media structure, we are fucked in this regard.

[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a libertarian. I know there is a philosophical and political version. but the libertarian party seems to be more of a thinking man's party, where solutions seem to be based off of more logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Libertarian, eh? Reason.com is libertarian website. Guess who funds it? Rupert Murdoch. Why would Murdoch support a libertarian website when he also owns Fox, a network that functions basically as a propaganda organ for the Republican party? Well, I'll tell you. Libertarianism is in large part the Republican platform minus the religious, moral demagoguery (and arguably minus corprate welfare).

The Libertarian philosophy completely neglects the poor, the elderly, etc. A strict libertarian interpretation would strip us of consumer protection and return us to the days of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. The idea of the libertarian philosophy being the "thinking man's" point of view is inacurate. Have there been great libertarian philosophers? Not that I can think of. Certainly not the kind who can hold a candle to Stuart Mill, Isaiah Berlin, Richard Rorty, T.H Greene, Thomas Dewey, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
The republican party is nothing more than a bunch of angry Christain fundementalist, who more or less adopted the party because social pluralism and integration seemed to be different from the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're leaving out the corporate malfeasors who finance the Republican Party (and libertarian think tanks and propaganda mills).

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

Sorry, I am not backtracking, but let me help you understand what I mean. I consider myself someone who base his decisions of of logic and reason, because basing it off of emotions and passions are unreliable and inefficient. With that in mind, I consider myself a libertarian, because it's electorate says more things I agree with. I am more of an independent than anything, but at the moment the libertarian party seems to say more things that I like. The democrat and republican party stagnate issues, they love to go around in circles, and love to avoid a bottom line. With that in mind, I would much rather endorse a party that promotes individuality (something largely negelected in America), legalizing drugs ( the approach now is a proven failure), and to some degree worry about corporate efficiency. Unlike most liberals, I am not going to sit here and act like I am all high and mighty, and say that corporations should not be concerned with making money. That is why they exist. And if they outsourse jobs, it may be unfortunate, but our market is flexible. Plus everyone knows that the says of getting with a company and being guaranteed a job for the next 30 years is a distant memory.

I am not a corporate protectionist, but I cant pretend that I wouldnt do the same thing if I was in their situation. Capitalism is proprogated by greed. It is one of the fundemental values, the system is imperfect to us emotional humans, but the system has been like that since it was just an idea in people like Adam Smith's head. No economic system is perfect, and to act like their is one is just a act of deceiving yourself.

I would like to live in reality and just realize that the world is currently a nightmare. And if you read history it has been a nightmare for a long time. If anything I am more liberal on is maybe socializing education. Education is a human right, as we are creatures who learn based off of input. Jobs, healthcare, freedom, are not necessarily guaraunteed. But freedom comes with education.

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

[ QUOTE ]
But freedom comes with education.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad you are living in a country which does not consider that as a fundamental right.

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

sorry, i know what you mean about BA degrees. I didn't mean they were a cake walk, just that they are percieved easier + when you find somehthing that you like a little more it tends to be a bit easier ( in my view).

And i'm totally in your ball park by just hearing "i hate bush" just for that fact that he's a republican that was born babied into the system by his family. Like it is different for the kennedys. But people hated bush before he even go into office.. why? i mean i couldn understand not liking the fact that a republican won if you voted otherwise, but to just hate someone; it just sets up anything he does to be scrutinized - if he does something bad, i knew it - i fhe does something good - he'd doing it for votes .

anyway, good politicians will never make it. I remember my favorite Paul Simon of IL , i'm sorry but he disagreed with all parties, but was savvy about it and honest.

dumb-stino

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

Paul Simon was a great Senator. I was sad when he died. Don't forget that he was a bigger womanizer than Clinton and John Kennedy combined though.

 

Re: Bush vs. Kerry: Round 1

You know, I heard that a lot.. too.
I can't say i followed those stories too much, so i cant comment on their validity or have an opinion on them.
I do know that many senators have seen him turn away women (like hookers or tramps) that were sent to his hotel rooms for political baiting. He even offered to take them to church.
but now that you mention that, i can see why they would send him girls, or maybe he'd offer to take them to have his way with them..

Mr RamRod:
from what others say you are a leftist ,, are you a socialist??
if so I do have one question, in light of the recent 'motorcylcle diaries' film (which relates to eberts review).
CHE , is continuously viewed as a revolutionary and a symbol that a lot socialist use. I liked what he stood for because it stll goes on in latin american countries today (the extreme social gaps and discriminations).
But CHE also was in agreement with Castro, and I don't believe he'd do much different with cuba that what Castro has done. I know there a lot of social programs that are quite interesting in cuba, but Castro also does have a heavier hand than many rulers. Why is CHE then used as a symbo, and not Castro since they were in the same group? Why is he a symbol if his approach to ruling, (not ideals for government), were similar to Castros?

Curious-stino