DescentBB

This thread for your snide remarks and drinking buzz words.

heh

Bush sucked again.

Man...he came out looking like puppet boy this time around. Doesn't matter that Kerry was lying out his 'I'll say anything to anyone to get their vote' ass. Bush was just plain flat, broken and shiftless. There were at least two painful mental mixups followed by dead silence.

Based on debate "performances" Kerry won.

Bush nails Kerry on building coalitions by bringing up the first Iraq war and how all the countries supported it and Kerry voted against it.

Bush looked better in this debate than he did in the other two. Kerry was actually fairly consistent throughout all three. Now if only he were that consistent with his rhetoric and policies... However, consistent meant "attack dog" mode, he nearly never neglected saying "this administration has failed," or "this president has..." Even his nearly sole compliment at the end was just a preface to another attack.

From both candidates, it was just "more of the same."

Sorry, I couldn't hear anything over two broken records

Missed about 3/4s of it, but by all marks, it doesn't seem like I missed much.

I already know who I'm voting for. I watch the debates for the perverse thrill of watching two candidates rip on each other.

Some moreso than others...

I walked to tempe town lake around 3:00 with a friend of mine. We wanted to see the Kerry post-debate rally but it was blocked off and only people with special blue tickets (that couldn't be boughten), could go in, and without that ticket you could just get like 100 yds from where he spoke. So that sucked so we went for a walk to see all these political activities going on, and we came across this teacher conference rally thing. My friend started talking to one of the people who worked there, and she mentioned that I was teaching, and so this lady just gave us two blue tickets.

So I got in the special area, got to watch the foo fighters in like the 5th row, watched the debate on the big screen with a bunch of hippies while we all made fun of Bush, and after the debate I got to watch more foo fighers live, (they played their old stuff, which I like alot better then their new stuff), then John Kerry came out and talked to us. It was sweet, cuz we shifted to like the 5th or 6th row from that stage (Kerry was on a different stage then the foo fighters). He only spoke to us after the debate for about 15-20 minutes though His wife spoke for about 10 minutes.

A badass night though

Hey, if KZerry is good enough for the foo fighters, hes good enough for me.

Kerry actually was a lot better in this debate than the first one. I watched almost all of it with my friend and we both agreee that Kerry actually got some meaningful points across about what specifically he will do in office as well as he took it to Bush for his many screw ups.

I feel alot better about my decision to vote for Kerry after watching this debate.

PS: Yeah, Old Skool Foo roxors new Foo. I'll stick around, Beeyotch.

there goes my hero.




watch him as he goes

Kerry did better. Bush totally dodged answering a couple of questions; one that comes to mind I think regarded jobs sent overseas he answered with education. Absolutely nothing to do with the question. Regardless of dodging the point, which both sides do, Bush still came across as a little bit of a whiner. Kerry would finish a statement and Bush would come on immediately, sputtering and saying, "That's just not true.." Pretty funny, really. Reminded my of a little kid saying, "Nuh-uhh, shut up you stupid head..." LOL

I didn't watch the debates, but I did read the transcripts, and I think Bush did a lot better in this debate than in the prior ones. I'd give him the edge on substance.

With respect to the "jobs" / "education" question... I seriously can't understand why people don't see the connection. Education = jobs. Jobs come from education. Does this make any sense at all?

I mean... it's not like you have a right to a well-paying job. We're not communists here -- we don't just hand you a job and say "here you go, here's a job for you." To get a well-paying job, you need to be educated.

The government simply can't keep chump-jobs from getting outsourced. If you can get some guy in Mexico or India to do the job for 10 times less, there's nothing the government can really do about that (though, if Kerry's statement about taxpayers subsidizing outsourcing is true, that is a problem.) But what the government can do is empower you to get a better job by giving you the opportunity to get an education.

I think this is where the fundamental difference between the two parties is. I heard it described as the difference between 'freedom from' and 'freedom to' (granted, this is a cartoon definition, but I think it clarifies things.) Democrats are the 'freedom from' party -- you have the right to be free from poverty, other people's religions, etc. Republicans are the 'freedom to' party -- you have the right to be free to get a better job, free to practice your religion, etc. (Yes, I know, this is only a cartoon definition. It's nowhere close to 100% accurate. All I mean to do with it is highlight the difference in philosophy.)

So, the Dems are saying "You should be free from the risk of losing your job. You should be free from the risk of being outsourced." The Reps are saying "You should be free to learn new job skills so you can get a better job."

Lothar wrote:So, the Dems are saying "You should be free from the risk of losing your job. You should be free from the risk of being outsourced." The Reps are saying "You should be free to learn new job skills so you can get a better job."

I think that's mostly true, especially in the context you present it. But Republicans have also been on the Freedom From side of issues. The Civil Rights Act(s) of the early 60's were opposed by many southern dem dixiecrats, while supported by many Republicans. And Republican Abe Lincoln brought the nation to war, so that blacks could be Free From slavery.

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote:And Republican Abe Lincoln brought the nation to war, so that blacks could be Free From slavery.

BD

I think Lincoln introduced freeing slaves as an after thought. It was a strategic manuver to keep the french from aiding the south and to cause slaves to flee the south which in turn weakened the souths labor pool.
I believe the civil war was about federal control of trade more than slavery.
But it was one of those side affects of war that is much celibrated.

Kind of like going to Iraq to keep Saddam from distributing WMD's and ending up freeing millions of people from a brutal dictator....ending a global U.N. bribery scam....planting the seeds of democracy in the heart of a region ruled by terror...you know, all those things that the little school children will be reading about President Bush in their school books for decades to come.

An example of the new world order if Kerry is elected and his orgasmic desire to be in thrall and lock step to the U.N is evidence in a little place called Darfur in the Sudan. To date the Arab militias have massacred in excess of 70,000 people. What has the U.N. done to date other than issue plactitudes and worthless warnings? Squat. So be prepared World.

Republican Abe Lincoln brought the nation to war, so that blacks could be Free From slavery.

Hate to burst your bubble, but that's not why the civil war was fought. Lincoln just wanted to keep the union together.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled right wing jerk session

Lothar wrote: With respect to the "jobs" / "education" question... I seriously can't understand why people don't see the connection. Education = jobs. Jobs come from education. Does this make any sense at all?
...The Reps are saying "You should be free to learn new job skills so you can get a better job."

I can see this point of view, but I disagree that education = jobs. Just because you are well educated does not mean you will get a job that will compare to the one you've lost. There are many instances of people I know directly who have lost their original jobs and have taken what they could find at considerably lower pay and fewer benefits. These aren't slouches here, were talking professional 4 year degree types. My opinion is that a person who has lost their job and is likely to be forced to take something at lower pay and benefits will not have the spare time or money to go get reeducated and therefore get trapped in this new position unless they are willing to make a drastic lifestyle change. If you're single, it might not be hard to give up your shiny new car and go back to Top Ramen and a small apartment to reduce costs to get the new degree; but if you've got a wife and/or kids, a mortgage, car payments, and various other bills, going back to school is not an option most can afford the time or money to take. You can have alphabet soup after your name to testify that you are a well educated person, but if the jobs just aren't there, you aren't getting one.

YMpakt, good point. Also for older people it's much harder to learn a new skill. If you are 50 and you need to work 15 more years to retire but suddenly you are out of a job, it'll be pretty damn hard to learn a new trade and adjust. Especially if you have kids. Will you even have the ability to take full time classes while bringing no bread to the table? Doubtful.

Retraining works for some, but not all.

Will Robinson wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote:And Republican Abe Lincoln brought the nation to war, so that blacks could be Free From slavery.

BD

I think Lincoln introduced freeing slaves as an after thought. ¶...¶ Kind of like going to Iraq to keep Saddam from distributing WMD's and ending up freeing millions of people from a brutal dictator....

Good lord. Couldn't disagree with you more.

BD

Birdseye wrote:

Republican Abe Lincoln brought the nation to war, so that blacks could be Free From slavery.

Hate to burst your bubble, but that's not why the civil war was fought.

Probably an overstatement on my part. But I feel like my bubble is still intact. Thanks anyway.

Lincoln's position against slavery was, in fact, the reason that southern states began seceding from the Union to form the Confederacy upon the realization he would take office. And it was during the war, not after it, that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. I recognize that Lincoln stated he had no plans to end slavery in those states where it already existed when taking office, but the fact remains that the South tried to break away because of Lincoln's known position against slavery.

You can say it was the chicken, but I think the issue was the egg.

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote:Good lord. Couldn't disagree with you more.
BD

Not sure you caught my point, I was in a hurry so let me try to capsulize my point.

Lincoln went to war not with freeing slaves as his primary objective. It was primarily to keep the southern states from breaking off. Their reason for breaking off wasn't just about slavery it was more about international trade and the Union/federal governments interference with how the South did business abroad.
*In spite of* the actual list of reasons for the war Lincoln is now best known as the 'man who went to war to free the slaves'

In that context I think one day Bush will be known as the 'man who went to war to change the face of the terrorist infested middle east' *in spite of* the WMD angle that seems to be everyones focus today.

Did that explanation work

[quote="Will Robinson]Did that explanation work [/quote]

Yes. Sorry for the truncated analysis.

BC