Presidential Debate

[Minionman]

I saw the third Kerry/Bush one but wasn't really paying attention because of homework so can't comment on it. How did it go from someone who was watching it better? It sounded somewhere between the other Kerry/Bush ones.

[Sir_Die_alot]

You misunderstood me. We agree though we stated it differently. You said "The truth is buried, and each source needs to be evaluated on it's own merits". That's pretty much just a more passive way of saying "If you want to eat the mud thrown you should really digest it all, not just that you find politically appetizing."

Obviously he has gobbled up the Blather memos but not even nibbled the swift vets, which has more "merit" when you consider who they are. If he is going to wait to see if it's Bush or Kerry he should know the skeletons in the closets of both cantidates, not just the one he doesn't like. :)

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

You misunderstood me. We agree though we stated it differently.

No, she didn't. And no, you didn't.

You're saying you have to listen to every piece of crap, equally, that shows up. Griselda is saying that you must exercise educated judgement to know who's worth listening to in the first place. Your methodology would put Fox News on par with the New York Times. Indicating this, in this august group of debaters, is laughable.

I would listen to a respected source who would tell me information of any sort, whether I agree or not. Doing so leads to an "informed opinion", which is the only type worth having. I would not, however, listen to those who scream the loudest, with the most dire of warnings, if they haven't an ounce of credibility to back them up nor the mileage to garner my respect in the first place.

[Sir_Die_alot]

You're saying you have to listen to every piece of crap, equally, that shows up.

I say you have to look at both sides equally. If you want to be the kind of schmuck that only listens to Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Moore or (insert political mouthpiece here) then go for it. If that's what Gris said (Though I can't read that into her post), then yeah I misunderstood and she would be wrong in that case.

Griselda is saying that you must exercise educated judgement to know who's worth listening to in the first place.  Your methodology would put Fox News on par with the New York Times.  Indicating this, in this august group of debaters, is laughable.

No, I'm speaking of political mud here. If you are going to spout the anti-Bush stuff as completely factual, then you should know that the there more facets to things than the DNC's.

I would listen to a respected source who would tell me information of any sort, whether I agree or not.  Doing so leads to an "informed opinion", which is the only type worth having.

Keep listening to your "respected source", if that's what you like. I'll keep digging at the different ones, and I think I will have a more "informed opinion" for it. Maybe we disagree on that, but you won't convince me that I am wrong.

I would not, however, listen to those who scream the loudest, with the most dire of warnings, if they haven't an ounce of credibility to back them up nor the mileage to garner my respect in the first place.

And yet you seem to have anyway. Your mantra is fresh out of the well funded, very vocal distortionists at moveon.org. Perhaps you don't listen to "those who scream the loudest" but can you still be so sure your "respected source" doesn't?

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

That's a lovely mound of rhetoric you've managed to shovel, there.

While twisting my own words, you've managed to mangle your own argument completely into a pretzel. I indicated that I would listen to "a respected source", not a singular definitive. I would wonder how you, in all your defensive and contemptuous posturing, can be certain that a source I consider "respected" isn't the same as a source you're claiming to "dig for"?

My "mantra" is my own, forged within my own intellect from the information that I've gathered, absorbed, screened and questioned. I follow a process like that for much of my decision-making. I tend to label it "common-sense". If moveon.org uses the same process... then hurrah for them. For myself, moveon.org is just another source of information that needs to be gathered, absorbed, screened and questioned. Oddly, enough... there's no screaming involved.

You're still being petulant, Mr. "Ditto"... and unfortunately for you, it only causes those among us that are worth debating to consider you unworthy of reply.

Enjoy the election; don't have an aneurysm if Kerry wins.

[Griselda]

I say you have to look at both sides equally. If you want to be the kind of schmuck that only listens to Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Moore or (insert political mouthpiece here) then go for it. If that's what Gris said (Though I can't read that into her post), then yeah I misunderstood and she would be wrong in that case.

I disagree with you then. Each source will need to be evaluated for its own merits, not just as an attempt to look at things from both sides. Nobody is trying to argue that people should get their truth from Rush Liumbaugh *or* Michael Moore here. What I am trying to do is bring a little rigor into the discussion. I suspect you didn't mean what you said literally, since you clearly give more weight to the swift boat ads than you do to the "Dan Rather documents", and by your argument you'd have to believe both or neither.

While most people here probably do fall into one clear camp or the other, it's important to avoid jumping to conclusions about other people's points of view. Just because somebody has questions about Bush's military record does not mean that they take every rumor on that topic to be the truth. Just because Nico's political views are to the left of yours does not mean that he supports everything that moveon.org has ever said.

The only way we are going to be able even to agree to disagree in the coming weeks is if we all try to argue against the positions that people have actually stated- and not against the positions that we assume that they have.

(PS- and I know I'm getting myself in trouble for this- Al French is one of the vets from the swift boat ads, and he happens to be somewhat local so I know a little bit more about his story. He says in the ad that he served with John Kerry, in fact he signed an affidavit swearing that he served with him, but it turns out that he never did. He was in the military, and in Vietnam, but he never served with Kerry. So, I don't consider him a reputable source of information about Kerry's military record, for what it's worth. Plus, as a District Attorney, you would think French would know better than to tell an outright lie. :( )

[apandapion]

You misunderstood me. We agree though we stated it differently. You said "The truth is buried, and each source needs to be evaluated on it's own merits". That's pretty much just a more passive way of saying "If you want to eat the mud thrown you should really digest it all, not just that you find politically appetizing."

Obviously he has gobbled up the Blather memos but not even nibbled the swift vets, which has more "merit" when you consider who they are. If he is going to wait to see if it's Bush or Kerry he should know the skeletons in the closets of both cantidates, not just the one he doesn't like. :)

I found neither the Rather memo nor Swift Vets for Truth particularly credible. They both seemed to me to be transparent political polys. My opinion of Bush and his National Guard record is mostly derived from reading Fortunate Son - you know, the book that the Bush campaign tried to quash, by having the first printing burned before it hit the shelves? Yes, that one.

At this point what mostly has my vote in the Kerry camp is what seems to be a pattern of foul play from the Bush camp, both in office and in his election team, which seems indemic to both him and a good percentage of the Republican party. While I don't have the time to write a comprehensive list of Republican misdeeds, I'm willing to read a list of Democratic misdeeds if you have one.

What I'm most pissed off about right now is the behavior of our local Senator in his reelection race. He won't even come home to debate his opposition in a fair debate - he does his half from the RNC surrounded by politicos feeding him good lines, in blatant violation of the debate rules. Bah.

I am concerned that both canidates are ignoring civil liberties. While supposedly working for freedom abroad, we seem to be losing it at home. I want Condorset or Approval voting so I can vote for both the Libertarians and the Democrats.

[Guest]

I think Kerry should win. I don't like Bush he went to two wars since being elected.

[Occhidiangela]

Well, to expand a little bit, IMO the divisions of opinion that exist on the Iraq war are too deeply and strongly held to simply say there are two sides to every argument. In the extreme case, one does not try to even-handedly present both sides of the argument about whether the earth is round or flat. I wouldn't be at all surprised, though, if we have different perpectives on who is the flat-earther. ;)

IMSHO, the Bush administration has been almost Orwellian in its justification and description of the Iraq war; something which may, perhaps, have contributed to the utter mess they have made of the occupation. I very much doubt it can be rescued by anyone at this point.
[right][snapback]57071[/snapback][/right]

Thankee for your explanation, I see what you mean.

Orwellian?

The Cold War was Orwellian, and we sorta won it.

This Not So Cold War, against the Islamicists, is a work in progress. If you want to see "Orwellian," take a good hard look at the ideology that we, and that includes you and me both, my dear Western Enlightenment raised friend, are up against.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Okay, well, leaving aside the notion that getting more troops is either physically impossible or incredibly unlikely, which I can't say I really see to be the case, I have to then wonder about a nation of 250 million people, nearly half of whom support the war in Iraq or are "enthusiastic" about Bush's plans there, who can't manage to recruit two measly divisions to serve there.

Why is that, exactly?

Jester
[right][snapback]57225[/snapback][/right]

Jester, why is it that a Nation of 20 million has such a small armed force?

Besides leaching of the US security teat, which is all well and good since we still are close allies, all carping aside, you do not have conscription.

To answer your question again, yes, we can easily raise two more divisions IF, and I say IF, the political will is there, which means

IF YOU PAY THE MONEY!!!!

Raising a two division hollow force on paper does not answer the mail.

A mechanized division is pricey, along the lines of a Carrier Battle Group, except it has twice the people and oodles more equipment.

The imbedded costs of training, housing, ranges, facilities, sustainment, all have to be accounted for and agreed to be spent.

I for one do not see there being the political will, at present, to foot the bill.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Um...  my programming career isn't going all that great, (no jobs out here since the dot com crash) so I'm considering joining the military before I'm too old.  You know, new life direction and all that.
[right][snapback]57507[/snapback][/right]

For what it's worth, PM me and we can talk about that career choice. There are choices to be made, options to consider. It might be a great fit for you, might not, hard to say. Who is pres does NOT make all that much difference. I have been from Carter to Pres Bush(43,) and can say that essentially, who is president has modest influence.

Plenty of up side, some down side, many options.

In life, it's not where you are, it's who you are with. I have found that the folks I have worked with, in the Navy, Marines, etc, are pretty darned good folks.

PS: Kerry was a "Sailor" "Naval Officer" not a Soldier. B)

Just to be nit picky! :blink:

Occhi

[eppie]

[right][snapback]56788[/snapback][/right]

So what has finally been the impact of the debates?

I just read in a (rightwing) dutch newspaper that according to a research by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) under people that vote vor Bush 72 % still believes that Saddam had WMDs just before the war started. 57 % thinks that the conclusion of Charles Duelfers report said that Iraq had WMDs.
About the Sadaam- al qaida connection they think a majority thinks the same thing .
Now this Duelfer works for the government, he is no michael moore, and we can expect that the things he said are true (and I'm not saying that Moore is lying, just that Duelfer is not biassed on this one) . How come so little americans don't know this? I mean you can have 351 debates but if the voters don't know these things a debate will not change peoples minds.

Another (terrible) thing: according to the UN inspectors (who are almost not allowed in Iraq anymore) since the US took control apparently large quantities of nuclear material (from energy instalations) got missing. I mean let's hope that the US confiscated this material and shipped it to america to use it itsself (than it would just be simple theft). The other thing that might have happened is that it got stolen by some extremists..... ....I'm so happy GW protects the free world :(

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

So what has finally been the impact of the debates?

CNN got to fill their voluminous airwaves with pointless, trivial fluff for a month's time.

[ManaCraft]

I just read in a (rightwing) dutch newspaper that according to a research by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) under people that vote vor Bush 72 % still believes that Saddam had WMDs just before the war started. 57 % thinks that the conclusion of Charles Duelfers report said that Iraq had WMDs.
About the Sadaam- al qaida connection they think a majority thinks the same thing .

You can find the entire study here.

Amazing that Bush voters are generally so misinformed.


ManaCraft

[Occhidiangela]

You can find the entire study here.

Amazing that Bush voters are generally so misinformed.
ManaCraft
[right][snapback]57939[/snapback][/right]

Figures lie and liars figure.

Thanks for that pseudo scientific link.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

...since the US took control apparently large quantities of nuclear material (from energy instalations) got missing. ...
[right][snapback]57919[/snapback][/right]

... as well as anything that was not bolted down.

Mostly a problem for the thieves in the potential damage from long term exposure to unshielded radiological source. Terrorists might be able to construct a dirty bomb, sure, but if they are Iraqi's they would be soiling their own back yard. If they plan on transporting it somewhere, it is the easiest stuff in the world to detect as it emits radiation and can be detected with a simple gieger counter. There are any number of less detectable chemicals floating around Iraq that would be as lethal, and harder to clean up. The only thing a radiological bomb has that terrorists would want is the psychological effect on an ignorant press and public.

[ldw]

... and if you need a bit of comic relief :P

here

[Occhidiangela]

... and if you need a bit of comic relief  :P

here
[right][snapback]58097[/snapback][/right]

Thankee! Silly, but fun.

Occhi

[eppie]

... as well as anything that was not bolted down.

Mostly a problem for the thieves in the potential damage from long term exposure to unshielded radiological source. 

---I think a suicide bomber wouldn't mind his hair falling out..

Terrorists might be able to construct a dirty bomb, sure, but if they are Iraqi's they would be soiling their own back yard. 

--so it is a good thing that all that stuff (now also 350 tons of high conventional explosives has gone missing) is stolen?


If they plan on transporting it somewhere, it is the easiest stuff in the world to detect as it emits radiation and can be detected with a simple gieger counter. 

---maybe the US should have used those things to prove Saddam hgad nucelar weapons than?

There are any number of less detectable chemicals floating around Iraq that would be as lethal, and harder to clean up.  The only thing a radiological bomb has that terrorists would want is the psychological effect on an ignorant press and public.
[right][snapback]58032[/snapback][/right]

So what is your point with all this? Because no chemical weopans have been stolen it is not so bad?? These are the same things Bush has been scaring the world about. And now it turns out that under US command al these materials have gone missinbh and then it is all of a sudden not so bad anymore? To me it is just another indication that Bush is not really interested in the safety of the western world, but in other things. I know we get into a your opinion against my opinion debate here again. I just don't see what Bush has been really doing to protect the US citizens.

[kandrathe]

So what is your point with all this? Because no chemical weopans have been stolen it is not so bad?? These are the same things Bush has been scaring the world about. And now it turns out that under US command al these materials have gone missinbh and then it is all of a sudden not so bad anymore? To me it is just another indication that Bush is not really interested in the safety of the western world, but in other things. I know we get into a your opinion against my opinion debate here again. I just don't see what Bush has been really doing to protect the US citizens.
[right][snapback]58209[/snapback][/right]

Well, a few things strike me.

First, sure, we went there and caused havoc and kicked old Saddam out. But, then is every evil that evil men do the US responsibility? In aggregate can we weigh the evil that is occurring against the evil that would have been occurring without the regime change?

Then, it is popular to square off right now against Bush or Blair, but it takes more than that to move troops. The US congress authorized the regime change in Iraq, and now they are ducking for political cover. This Iraq war may or may not have been the right thing to do, and we can disagree about that, but I think sometimes when you are doing the right thing it may not be the popular or easy thing to do. The outcome is uncertain, but if the Iraqi's can pull it together and form a more stable peaceful nation, then it might have been worth it.

Now my point about radiological materials is that in a way they are safer than many other things that Iraq had stockpiled in their warehouses. A savvy terrorist chemist could concoct much nastier things, that are less detectable, with far more devastating results. That's all.

I'm getting a little tired of the blame for everything bad that happens in Iraq being set on the US shoulders. Shouldn't the Iraqi's be responsible for their people and their own evil actions? How many people does the Netherlands have there anyway? Easy enough to criticize what the US is doing while kicking back and enjoying the PINT Bokbierfestival.

I suspect you wouldn't be an advocate for the US to pack up and leave, so if not, then you could suck it up a little and tolerate a little human error once in a while or maybe just get up and talk Europe into getting involved a little more. I'm sure our boys could use the help.