Any americans watch the debate last night?

Anarcho · Sat 02/10/2004 07:35:34

By the way, is there such a thing as a Scottish jig?

[Cameron] · Sat 02/10/2004 07:37:19

Highland dancing.

Dave Gilbert · Sat 02/10/2004 19:48:19

Quote from: juncmodule on Sat 02/10/2004 00:26:10

Personally, I don't get that argument. If he can't out-debate someone then should he really be representing our country? Can you just imagine the things he says to other world leaders!?

It's not just that. The right-wing camp keeps making the argument that Bush is a strong and decisive leader, and that he is capable of managing a war as a result. The debate put a massive hole in that, since Kerry came across as being light years more strong and decisive than Bush. If there was more time, this could really turn things around for Kerry. I only hope it's not too late.

Quote

Quote
Going into the debate my vote was for Kerry. Not to elect Kerry, but to get Bush out. I must say that Kerry performed very well and I no longer feel the guilt of giving my vote away to someone I don't like.

There's actually a website called www.kerryhatersforkerry.com! I was a frequent reader because that's exactly how I feel, but no longer. I was so impressed by Kerry the other night that my opinion of him completely reversed. Or flip-flopped, if you will. I'll be proud to vote for the guy now.

TerranRich · Sat 02/10/2004 20:35:31

This debate seems to have been exactly what Kerry needed to redeem himself in some people's eyes.

And yes, despite all of us initelligent people knowing that Bush is insane and we desperately need him to go, there are still Bush supporters. AVID Bush supporters. Can someone explain this to me? How can someone be so dense and brainless as to support Bush...especially NOW after these debates?

Dave Gilbert · Sat 02/10/2004 20:43:16

I'll tell you the main reason - and that's the republicans are the best spin campaigners in the world.

For example, one year ago it was predicted that we'd be over $480 billion dollars in debt by now. It turns out we are $420 billion in debt. Rather than worry about this, the repubs announce "We're doing great! Due to our strong and decisive leadership, we're $60 billion better off than we thought we'd be!" And all the uneducated yokels buy into it.

Also, there is a lot of money behind the republican party, and they control the media. Most of the media in this country is very right wing, and tends to bias their coverage in favor of Bush. If you don't believe me, look at the 90s. The media were like attack dogs. If Bill Clinton got a hangnail the media would be all over him, portraying him as being weak and ineffective. Under Bush, the media can't seem to say enough good things about the administration. It's quite worrisome.

TerranRich · Sat 02/10/2004 20:47:29

Especially FOX. They're well known for being right-wing idiots.

Anarcho · Sat 02/10/2004 20:56:31

I don't think that the republican party controls the media, I think it's more about access and the nature of the 24-hour news cycle. Karl Rove and company know how the media works, and have worked it to their advantage. Reporters need inside contacts, they want to be able to get interviews with members of the administration. To get that access, they can't ask sensitive questions that the administration doesn't want to answer. It's like in that movie by Alexandra Pelosi, when she was traveling with the Bush primary campaign...she had a nice relationship with Bush until she asked a tough question about the death penalty...then he stopped talking to her. She felt the pressure from her bosses to have access to him, so she had to change the kind of questions asked.

So in terms of access, the administration knows that it can drop a reporter or paper from the loop if necessary. As a result, the media has stopped asking tough questions.

Furthermore, with the 24 news cycle, reporters don't fact check. They just report as fact whatever the administration or their talking heads say. They're in such a rush to report the next story to keep up with the other channels, journalism has suffered.

When the media stops asking questions, then we're really screwed.

-Logan

By and by, there's a great article in the New York Times today about the aluminum tubes that the administration so often cited as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program...turns out they knew as far back as 2001 that they're weren't used for nukes but for normal missiles.

shbaz · Sat 02/10/2004 20:59:18

I've heard arguments both ways for the media. I think they report whatever is popular to keep ratings up. People don't want to turn on the TV and hear something they don't like.

Matt Brown · Sat 02/10/2004 23:37:48

I dont buy that the US media is run by the right wing....just FOX. there were still a lot of clinton-lovers in the media. People love a story, and ragging on the president is a great way for a story.

Im so glad Kerry kicked Bush's ass at the debate. I hate Bush. I fell into the camp that a lot of you guys apparently are in too, the (I dont like Kerry but I hate Bush one). Im with Dave here...I'll be happy to vote for Kerry this election. If he loses though...we'll, Im out of the country for 2 years on a mission....

DGMacphee · Sun 03/10/2004 05:05:12

I find it strange that people say the media is owned by right-wingers when there are an equal number of people saying there's a liberal bias in the media (case in point, CBS's recent problems). I guess it just depends on your perspective.

My opinion: FOX has a bigger audience, so there's a greater right-wing bias.

Also, I never understood why people say they hated Kerry. I have not really heard one substantial reason from anyone as to why they hate him (and by substantial, I'm not talking "He flip-flops!" or "He's exploiting his military career!" or "North Korea loves him!"). I mean, if you're going to call Kerry a flip-flopper for first being for a war and then later against it, you might as well call Ron Kovic a flip-flopper too. And I guess the late author and soldier Ernest Hemingway is also a flip-flopper for calling any war a crime, no matter how justified.

It's stupid mentality to call people flip-floppers.

And every reason I've heard so far has been based merely on twisted perceptions. I haven't heard anyone say they hate him based on his policies. Why hasn't anyone brought out any of his policy decisions and said, "I hate this policy because..."

I mean, Bush attacked Kerry's National Security plan during his debate, saying it won't work. Why? Cause Kerry was an untested man. Bullshit. Bush has been tested, has no real plan or policy for post-war Iraq, and yet expects the American public to believe Kerry's plan won't work because he hasn't been tested. Why hasn't Bush attacked the actual plan? Did Bush even bother to look up the plan. I know he had the opportunity post-debate because Kerry pimped his website sometime during the beginning of the debate. I don't know who else looked up the plan, but I've found some probs with it. For example, "Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil" -- Okay, that's fine but where will the oil come from?

Look at this table from the US Department of Energy: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t44.xls

US oil is in decline, while Middle Eastern Oil is one a steady rise. I'm all for alternative energy sources, but Kerry's plan isn't really practical, unless he's got magic oil pixies hidden somewhere.

Now, think about that. I've managed to pull apart one of the key areas in Kerry's strategy based upon facts, yet Bush didn't even do that during the debate. He just used the same tired rhetoric. And he had every opportunity to argue based on actual facts. In fact, my argument sounds like a proper Republican arguement. I'd make a better Republican president than Bush and I'm not even Republican... or American!

I don't hate Kerry. Never have. Can anyone who hates Kerry (or hated Kerry before the debate) tell me why they do so?

Moox · Sun 03/10/2004 05:34:41

Liberals... Kerry is hypocritical at points, and then when he started talking about generals that support him I almost fell over laughing. Four out of hundreds!

c.leksutin · Sun 03/10/2004 05:37:58

Quote from: LostTraveler on Sun 03/10/2004 05:34:41
Liberals... Kerry is hypocritical at points, and then when he started talking about generals that support him I almost fell over laughing. Four out of hundreds!

You ever seen a politician that WASN'T hypocritical?

C.

shbaz · Sun 03/10/2004 05:43:20

Magic oil pixies.. haha.

Well as someone who has done a load of research into alternative energy, I'll go into my rhetoric.

Maybe Kerry was talking about alternative fuels, in an under-the-breath sort of way.

There is no energy crisis, only a control crisis. The oil companies have a vast system of refineries, pipelines, tankers and etcetera set up and switching to anything else would make all of that expensive equipment scrap. They don't want to break free from oil until it's tapped to the last drop.

Diesel engines work on a compression cycle with fuel that won't ignite unless it's exposed to such a heat that it explodes, and so diesel engines compress air until it reaches the proper temperature and then inject fuel which subsequentally explodes. Rudolph Diesel invented and tested this engine with vegetable oil - and the engines today will still run (much more cleanly I might add) on vegetable oil. The problem with this is that vegetable oil will solidify/gel at lower temperatures and so the fuel delivery system would need to be modified. If you subject vegetable oil (even waste oil from fryers) to an easy process that many people do in their back yards, you can get a derivitive that is free of the fats in vegetable oil that is commonly called biodiesel. So petroleum diesel fuel is totally replacable, if you can get a supply chain up for it. That is a problem.. oil isn't an abundant element in even the oil-rich crops, so will it tax the food supply? No.. it can come from algae, which can be grown with brackish water in even a desert environment where land is vast, unoccupied, and cheap. So a biodiesel supply chain can, and likely will, replace diesel fuels. I believe it can be done cost effectively too with properly designed equipment. Biodiesel mixes readily with petro-diesel, never requires engine or fuel system delivery modifications on vehicles manufactured after 1993 (corrodes rubber fuel lines), and burns way cleaner.

Gasoline is a bit of a different issue. Probably the best fuel to replace it is ethanol (alcohol) except for the fuel efficiency difference. You lose about 15-30% of fuel economy. Ethanol is loads cleaner and burns cooler. It will burn in any gasoline engine with minor mods to the fuel delivery system. With a carbeurated engine this would mean replacing the jets and increasing fuel flow. With a fuel injected system it's a modification in the chip that controls injection, a lot of vehicles are already set up as multifuel engines (for exportation to places like Brazil where ethanol fuel is common) and the drivers don't even know. Ethanol is derived from sugar rich crops like grains, corn, fruit, potatoes, sugar beets and sugar cane. What a lot of people don't realise is that you can also get ethanol from cellulose (wood, wheat stalks, grass, etc - one of the most abundant resources on earth). The fermentable elements are locked in by a type of "glue" though and you need to process it with acid before they are unlocked. A breakthrough in this field was made by Purdue University (USA) who genetically modified a micro-organism that will break down the cellulose and ferment it in one easy step! They are providing it to a select few manufacturers on a leasing basis, and it is being tightly controlled because environmental contamination would be a terrible problem (since the thing eats what is practically everywhere). Right now demand for ethanol isn't high except for a drink, so this hasn't caught on. If there were demand enough for fuel, it sure as hell would and since it's such an efficient process and uses an abundant and cheap raw product, it would be very cheap to buy on a mass market. Much cheaper than gasoline.

The main advantage to biofuels is the low emmisions. They burn so much cleaner that engine life is dramatically increased to about 150-300% of what it would be with carbon rich petroleum fuels.

I think that the change that is needed to modify the market is so widespread that no one will be able to do it without vast financial funding. It spans multiple markets and it just isn't feasible now, even though it'd be loads better for everyone but the Middle East.

Moox · Sun 03/10/2004 05:44:24

No, but he is pretty high on the hypocrit scale. Bullet proof vests, vietnam expierence, generals, I think some one has a hidden agenda...
He was extrememly rude during the debate, he wasnt trying to win, he was trying to kill. Both are idiots yet who do you trust more, one with four years of expierience or on with zero?

shbaz · Sun 03/10/2004 05:48:50

What does experience prove? No president went into office experienced as a president. On the other hand, Kerry has been in the Senate for how many years?

What if it was a bad experience? Do you continue to trust a CEO who nearly bankrupts your company, just based on the quantity of experience he has? It isn't quantity that matters, lost one, it's quality.

As far as hypocrisy goes.. how about "No child left behind," which is subsequently underfunded? The "Patriot Act" which strips us of civil liberties and is now finally being subjected to judicial review?

Moox · Sun 03/10/2004 05:58:48

Yes bush supported no child left behind, that is a waste of the education system, but the patriot act was passed by congress and has no relation to the president. Yes, he could of vetoed it, but what would be the purpose, the senate and the house supported it. How can you prove his expierence is negative? I dont know of any president that wouldnt go to war if they where put in the situation he was put in so dont use that as an example.

MrColossal · Sun 03/10/2004 06:02:57

Yea Losttraveler, if that made you laugh so hard then you must have been rolling at everything Bush said.

And what are you talking about Hidden Agenda? And how was he rude? I seem to remember Bush attacking Kerry first "Well, I'd like to ask my opponent how he's going to pay for all these promises, but that's for another debate." Also, I'd love it if Bush could ask Kerry a question, but rules are rules I guess!

Oh wait, Bush was also the first one to break those rules by talking directly to Kerry and asking a question...

Did you even listen to what he was talking about with the bullet proof vests? How Bush sent the US troops to war WITHOUT THEM?!?! That doesn't bother you at all?

How can you pick and choose what you want to see in a person so blindly like this?

Yes, please also tell me which president went into his term with experience of being a president... I'm allll ears.

So a few Generals [and not just random Generals mind you] support kerry and you're laughing and a few countries out of the entire world support Bush and that's not something to laugh at?

Las Naranjas · Sun 03/10/2004 06:14:57

Bush Snr, having fulfilled the constitutional role of Acting President [who is legally president for the duration] for 8 hours in 1985 when Reagan transferred power due to a need to undergo an operation.

So pwned by pedantry fag.

shbaz · Sun 03/10/2004 06:22:23

So he had experience before the eight hours that he was president? You still make no point..

Moox · Sun 03/10/2004 06:30:41

Shbaz: Eric wanted know someone who had presidential expierience before going into office

Eric: I dont care if we dont have bullet proof vests, there has only been 1000 casualtys during this war, thats remarkably low compared to every other conflict. W00t four generals support him, big deal, I personaly know more then four myself, thats why its humorous. How can you say that a few countries support bush. Countries dont support individuals, they support nations.