# Bush v. Kerry, Round Three **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 13, 2004, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997 "2004-10-13T13:53:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 30
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/581 "2004-10-14T16:20:53Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Ten dollars is nothing. Wow. This will go down as one of the dumbest things I’ve read on the SD. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/582 "2004-10-14T16:29:32Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > Wow. This will go down as one of the dumbest things I’ve read on the SD. In many parts of the country, even a single person earning $10 an hour would be living in poverty, sharing a two-room apartment with several other people, probably getting enough to eat, but certainly not being able to afford decent healthcare. Transportation could be a serious problem. If that person also had a child or two, we’re now talking about abject, grinding poverty. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/583 "2004-10-14T16:38:17Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > I too have little love lost for people blinded by dogma on _either_ side of the debate. But please don’t think snarky one-liners are advancing the great crusade of rationality. My one liners in these threads haven’t been nearly snarky enough to qualify. I prefer to think of my questions as modified Socratic inquiry. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/584 "2004-10-14T16:44:13Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > In many parts of the country, even a single person earning $10 an hour would be living in poverty, sharing a two-room apartment with several other people, probably getting enough to eat, but certainly not being able to afford decent healthcare. Transportation could be a serious problem. > > If that person also had a child or two, we’re now talking about abject, grinding poverty. And how many people would lose their jobs entirely if the min wage were raised to $10/hr? What advice do you have for them? ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/585 "2004-10-14T16:49:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My one liners in these threads haven’t been nearly snarky enough to qualify. Calling people idiots and blowhards in GD isn’t _nearly_ snarky enough in advancing the great crusade of rationality? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/586 "2004-10-14T16:51:11Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > In many parts of the country, even a single person earning $10 an hour would be living in poverty, sharing a two-room apartment with several other people, probably getting enough to eat, but certainly not being able to afford decent healthcare. Transportation could be a serious problem. > > If that person also had a child or two, we’re now talking about abject, grinding poverty. Christ. Does anyone understand economics?? What about the people who are willing to work for $6 to $9 but can’t because the government won’t allow wages of that level? The government is saying that if you want to work at all, you better be able to earn at least $10 an hour. Making $9 an hour is better than not working at all. Where is your compassion for those willing to work for $9? Do you know how many of those people currently making minimum wage would be fired because of the unwillingness by employers to double their wages?? ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/587 "2004-10-14T17:09:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My one liners in these threads haven’t been nearly snarky enough to qualify. > > I prefer to think of my questions as modified Socratic inquiry. I may prefer to think of my ass as a teakettle. That doesn’t mean I shit Earl Grey. Or to put it less crudely, the effectiveness of your presentation is measured by your listeners. Calling your one-liners “modified Socratic inquiry” doesn’t change the fact that you’re coming across as nothing more than a snarky partisan yourself. If you want to claim the intellectual high ground, the time do so was when you chose your presentation, not after the fact. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/588 "2004-10-14T17:12:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I prefer to think of my questions as modified Socratic inquiry. In that case, my dog just left a big, steaming pile of modified Socratic inquiry in the back yard. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/589 "2004-10-14T17:18:57Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > If these threads are no more than lefty groupthink, why do you trouble yourself with them? > > Daniel Because, Daniel, we should be interested in fighting ingnorance. If one groups’ opinions and beliefs become the overwhelming voice then those trying to become informed have lost the ability to be objective and can’t see the other sides’ reasons (since they aren’t there to see). And, for the same reason you trouble yourself, you think you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/590 "2004-10-14T17:29:00Z")
I may well be wrong… but I don’t agree I’m as partisian as those I am trying to castigate. I have repeatedly acknowledged that people of good will and reasonable minds may disagree on key issues, and that support for Kerry may well be motivated by honest and good-faith differences in belief. I have always said that I think Kerry himself is a good and honorable man, and, should he win, I think we’ll have a good man in the White House. Of course, I contend that of the two candidates, he is not the BEST choice, but he is certainly a reasonable one. If, in a thread like this, the majority of posters were mirror images of the above position, then I’d have no beef. But that’s not the case. The majority of posters seem to envince a belief that support for Bush and his policies is not possibly a matter of good-faith disagreement, but downright evil, ignorant, or selfish. It is that hardline attitude that gives rise to my discussion – which is, at its heart, an effort to suggest the followign argument: if Bush is as evil as you say, if his policies are so self-evidently destructive as you say, why in heaven’s name is roughly half the country in disagreement with you? The same question cannot be applied to me, because I don’t contend that Kerry is a diasaster or a tool of Satan. I have no trouble explaining why half the country doesn’t agree with me: because they, in good faith, have different priorities and different takes on the issues. While I don’t share those, neither do I dismiss them as ignorant or evil. So - tell me, precisely, how my contributions are “as partisan” as those I am discussing? ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/591 "2004-10-14T17:33:00Z")
Many people don’t understand the difference between ‘offense’ and ‘defense’ either. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/592 "2004-10-14T17:43:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If, in a thread like this, the majority of posters were mirror images of the above position, then I’d have no beef. But that’s not the case. The majority of posters seem to envince a belief that support for Bush and his policies is not possibly a matter of good-faith disagreement, but downright evil, ignorant, or selfish. It is that hardline attitude that gives rise to my discussion – which is, at its heart, an effort to suggest the followign argument: if Bush is as evil as you say, if his policies are so self-evidently destructive as you say, why in heaven’s name is roughly half the country in disagreement with you? Would you like a little _argumentum ad populum_ sauce on top of your strawman? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/593 "2004-10-14T17:54:27Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Would you like a little _argumentum ad populum_ sauce on top of your strawman? I’m not sure I agree there’s a strawman here. However, there’s certainly - at first blush - a heaping help o’ _argumentum ad populum_. I agree that merely because many people do not believe Bush’s policies to be X is not evidence one way or another for Bush’s policies being X. So when I said above that Bush’s policies are claimed to be evil, and refuted that by saying half the people in the country disagree, that was classic _argumentum ad populum_. BUT – there’s an underlying reason for these debates: the populace will vote for either Bush or Kerry to be the President for the next four years. To the extent that discussion about these debates has any real meaning, surely that meaning culminates in what will happen in the election. And pointing out that half the people support Bush, when discussing the election’s results, is **not** _argumentum ad populum_, for obvious reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/594 "2004-10-14T17:57:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If, in a thread like this, the majority of posters were mirror images of the above position, then I’d have no beef. But that’s not the case. The majority of posters seem to envince a belief that support for Bush and his policies is not possibly a matter of good-faith disagreement, but downright evil, ignorant, or selfish. It is that hardline attitude that gives rise to my discussion – which is, at its heart, an effort to suggest the following argument: if Bush is as evil as you say, if his policies are so self-evidently destructive as you say, why in heaven’s name is roughly half the country in disagreement with you? _If you had said that in the first place I wouldn’t be bothering to reply_. Hell, I’ve made nearly the same point myself in threads about Ralph Nader. But your one-liners in these debate threads, quite frankly, do a piss-poor job of enunciating the argument you make above. Instead, we had the following (very paraphrased) exchange: (Various posters, including various Kerry partisans): Kerry’s cleaning Bush’s clock! d00D! (Some particularly rabid partisans): Yeah, 'cause Bush sux! (Bricker): Oh yeah? Then I guess Kerry will go up in the polls then, right? There is no way in hell, given the point of the thread in the first place, that I can interpret that as anything other than a rather smug challenge _to the premise that Kerry did better than Bush in the debates_. A challenge you kept making ever after Kerry _did_ go up the polls after the first debate. I too watched the first debate, and I thought Kerry won. So when I saw that the polls did indeed reflect that, contrary to your apparent assertion, I said so. And your reply is “No, you don’t get it, that’s not what I really, really, truly meant. I’m just decrying the smarmy attacks that the sneering partisans are making in this thread. Really, all I’m saying is that if Bush is so evil why do roughly half of the voters support him?” Which is an excellent point. So it would have been great if you had, you know, actually made that point. Instead, we got the one-liners. And I can say with great confidence that if I didn’t “get” your point, it’s not because I don’t occupy some supposed Bricker plateau of lofty civilized discourse and rationality. It’s because the point wasn’t there to be gotten. > [@](#): > > So - tell me, precisely, how my contributions are “as partisan” as those I am discussing? You come off as partisan because you continued to ignore the fact that Kerry _did_ go up in the polls until it was thrust in your face, and even then you doubled back and said “Well, he didn’t get a really really big swing so it doesn’t count, and that wasn’t my super-secret point anyway”. I’m not going to try and argue that you are “as partisan” as those you are discussing because I didn’t say that in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/595 "2004-10-14T18:08:43Z")
Maybe I came in with a different expectation. A thread written simultaneously with the debate, in which a lot of posters are playing a drinking game, isn’t the kind of place I’ll come looking for levelheaded debate. Indeed, I tihnk the thread would be more suited to IMHO or MPSIMS, although the mods disagreed. So yeah, people used the thread as a place for snarky comments about Bush and Kerry both (though more for Bush). I read it afterwards as a place to blow off steam about the debate. I’ll read other threads in the forum for intellectual discussion of the issues raised. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/596 "2004-10-14T18:16:01Z")
Also, just for fun, **Bricker** , I’ll point you to [The Pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=280894), where you can see a lefty partisan take a swan dive into a piranha tank. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/597 "2004-10-14T18:18:16Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > Which is an excellent point. So it would have been great if you had, you know, actually made that point. Instead, we got the one-liners. And I can say with great confidence that if I didn’t “get” your point, it’s not because I don’t occupy some supposed Bricker plateau of lofty civilized discourse and rationality. It’s because the point wasn’t there to be gotten. Fair enough. I thought it was clear, but if it wasn’t, then I accept that my post didn’t have the desired effect. But it did spur this discussion, in which I fortunately had the opportunity to clarify my meaning, so all is not lost. > [@](#): > > You come off as partisan because you continued to ignore the fact that Kerry _did_ go up in the polls until it was thrust in your face, and even then you doubled back and said “Well, he didn’t get a really really big swing so it doesn’t count, and that wasn’t my super-secret point anyway”. I’m not going to try and argue that you are “as partisan” as those you are discussing because I didn’t say that in the first place. Again, fair enough. My inadvertantly classified super-secret point now having been made plainly, I’ll retire the off-handed comments on Kerry’s poll standings in favor of the unexciting, but abundantly clear, screed I posted above. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/598 "2004-10-14T18:20:38Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Also, just for fun, **Bricker** , I’ll point you to [The Pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=280894), where you can see a lefty partisan take a swan dive into a piranha tank. > > Daniel I just read that thread, and, quite frankly, I was amazed. Except for **World Eater** – and, of course, the OP – everyong in that thread defied my expectations and I could not be happier. Perhaps the tide is turning, or perhaps it was just a consequence of this kind of thread that invited the sort of discourse that set my teeth on edge. But the thread linked to above certainly flies in the fact of all my criticism here. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/599 "2004-10-14T18:39:14Z")
[off topic]Who’s the goofball that got up on stage with them right at the end?[/ot] ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997/600 "2004-10-14T18:58:57Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > And how many people would lose their jobs entirely if the min wage were raised to $10/hr? None. That’s just a bullshit scare tactic. No minimum wage increase has ever resulted in a loss of jobs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-v-kerry-round-three/268997.md?page=31)