Decius wrote:

] 1. The thirty second response format was annoying this time.
] Kerry in particular seemed sound bitey during those quick
] responses.

It is due to the fact that he cannot give a straight answer to any question. He is the most apologetic politician I have seen since Swaggart. Whoops, that was a televangelist! Sorry.

] 2. Bush seemed more personable. Kerry seemed smarter.

Bush seems like an irritable old man. Kerry seems like a Frankenstein monster.

] 3. In my mind Kerry won the joust over partial birth
] abortions, but the thing is that most people aren't interested
] in the complexity of the situation and Kerry didn't underline
] it on an emotional level. Stupid people like stupid black and
] white choices. They are blinded by their convictions. You have
] to ask them how they would feel if their wife was going to die
] and the doctor had the power to save her but it was illegal.
] You have to reach for the throat to cut through the propaganda
] of the fundies.

Well, partial-birth abortion does have several strong arguments going against it. In cases to save the mother's life, then the doctors may well be serving their oath (e.g. Do No Harm), but that procedure runs dangerously close to infanticide. If an organism is viable, operable and essentially a fully formed human being, then jabbing scissors into the back of its head, sucking the brains out, vivisecting the motherfucker and forgetting about it aren't unconscionable acts, then we, as a society have no place caring about soldiers in Iraq, ourselves, our the goddam whales. In effect, this process should only be legal when the mother's (ironic choice of words, considering the topic) life is in jeopardy. If this procedure is common for trivial reasons, then our people have no right to fight for any good cause. We are disgusting and disposable at that juncture. If a woman hasn't figured out, by eight months of pregnancy, that she is going to abort the thing, then she should be sterilized and given a lobotomy, since the only thing in her skull is fecal matter. I defy someone to justify this utter waste.

] 4. They both seem to be buying my vote. The debate over middle
] class taxes was a little annoying. Am I supposed to eat the
] rich, Kerry? At least be subtle about it.

I doubt that Kerry REALLY wants you to eat the rich, otherwise his wife's pubic hair would be stuck between your teeth. He is giving that illusion, but all democrats and republicans screw everybody, annually. It's quite amazing how this occurs. Kerry will be a bit less conservative than Bush, but that is it. Neither of them are conservative in the right ways. Nor is either one liberal in the right ways.

] 5. Bush did seem to spend too much time talking about Kerry
] and not enough time talking about what he plans to do.

Wonder why this is? Could it be that he hasn't received that envelope from the big floating brain that they keep in a jar, yet? yet?

] 6. I wonder if the fundies realize that Bush's religious
] references are calculated. I think no, and I think Kerry lost
] points there.

His religious references are the work of Karl Rove, since it seems like Georgie is about as godless as they come.

] 7. The debate, in general, made me feel more confident about
] the idea of Kerry as president. Kerry seems like someone who
] understands what is involved and has a clear plan to meet the
] challenges. Bush seems defensive and given to
] oversimplification.

I bet ten bucks that Kerry gets the draft going by his third year.

]
] I never commented on the VP debate so I'll do it now. It was
] very close, but I agree with Elonka. Edwards seemed like a
] salesman. Cheney seemed more intelligent and genuine. Cheney
] is the kind of conservative I wish I could actually vote
] for... Someone who would build a free market and a tough
] foreign policy without putting the fundamentalists in power
] over my personal life at the same time..
]

Chaney did do better than I even figured he would. What about McCain/Chaney? That is qualification right there. However, if we had Lieberman as VP and Gore as CIC at the time of "September the 11th" (as Bush likes to call it), that may have spelled disaster for the nation and the existence of the democratic party itself. There are historical precedents in these matters. I think that no one gave two shits about Bush on Sept. 12, but most would agree that Chaney was the man we wanted behind the scenes, calling the shots, at that point.

] If there was a Kerry Cheney ticket I'd be sold. Unfortunately,
] I'm not voting for the Vice President...
]
] (And unfortunate it is. Doesn't everybody realize that
] flipping a red/blue switch every four years is an insult to
] the idea of democracy?

No, American women like soap operas and American men like sports. They like their politics served the same way, with a side of horseshit.

We should have a more granular
] ability to control our government. How democratic IS your
] country compared with others?

Here, it's pretty damned democratic. It's consistently yeilded some good things, and often times when it doesn't, the trouble rests squarely on the shoulders of the people themselves. It's their job to be educated and keep their politicians accountable the same way they keep an underling accountable at work. We need to turn on to the sportslike attitude of politics and transform our public offices into interactive programs, where we have a boss/servant relationship with the government. The government, on any issue should only be boss to a minority opinion and the people should never, ever be the servants. Government is a tool that will cut your hand off if you don't keep your steady grip on it. Sometimes it's better to turn the power switch off, but we haven't reached a situation like that in the last two hundred years. It's fortunate that the Constitution allows us to modify the settings when the machine breaks. In fact, our system of checks and balances is a nice troubleshooting manual. More people read the troubleshooting manual for their microwave than their government. That ain't Washington, Jefferson, or Franklin's fault.

Spare the patriotic bullshit and
] really think about it. How do you compare how
] democratic countries are?

We are pretty good in our system, tom, but I wish you would have offered some examples for us to compare to. Nowhere in South America is better, Nowhere in Asia is better, definitely nowhere in africa is better. I would rather be here than Iraq, or on the dole in jolly olde England. Russia is not the greatest example of democracy (though it was a far worse example of both totalitarianism and communism). Canada does not apply since there are too many outstanding differences between us in terms of demographics, economy, class structure, and technically, they are a monarchy. Australia is an example of a place that may be better, but I hear horror stories from people who live there regarding a great deal of the ills that present themselves under the surface. The jury is still out on them. And the only other place I can think of is Israel, but let's not go into a country that oppresses over half its residents based upon religious belief and a selfish inability to share. Additionally, if we had people to fight our battles for us and no conscience about our actions towards our neighbors, we might be a mighty nice democracy as well. There are the contrasts, but I can only think of one true democracy that impresses me on the level of the United States. It was in Athens and you cannot ask anyone to describe it first hand anymore.

RE: Debate ][