Because this place, in general, prizes critical thinking and analysis. Pointing out the lack of those qualities when they fail to manifest will, I hope, lessen the instances of groupthink.
Waving the flag of critical thinking and analysis might work better if you at least acknowledge that previous debates did affect polls in Kerry’s favour.
Only to protect the life or health of the motherboard.
Absolutely. But not nearly to the degree that one would expect if the reaction of the first and second debate threads’ participants were shared by the country at large. I acknowledged myself that Kerry won the first debate, by any reasonable measure. But each thread was a veritable onslaught, a barrage, against the President, with little or no attempt to acknowledge two sides of any question.
This is what I keep trying to point out: while this board is largely convinced that Bush (excuse me: “Bushco”) is Evil Incarnate, the real country is very evenly divided. And these divisions do not arise simply because people are “sheeple,” or easily fooled by the nefrious Karl Rove. Undoubtedly, ignorance drives some Bush support - just as, undoubtedly, ignorance drives some Kerry support. Some Bush support arises from a principled analysis of the issues - as, assuredly, some Kerry support arises from a principled analysis of the issues. Reasonable people of good faith may disagree on the proper role of government in education, for example, and that disagreement may form the basis for support of a particular candidate.
It irks me no end that there is such seeming blindness on this – that so many Kerry supporters simply contend that Bush supporters are evil, ignorant, or selfish. And these threads simply allow the worst of these sneering partisans to wallow in mutal admiration of snide putdowns, rather than engaging in even the slightest exercise in rational and fair-minded discourse.
Why stop there? Let’s just make it $100/hr and then we’ll all be rich…
:rolleyes: Nothing personal, DtC. Your post just gave me a jumping off point. It’s no worse than the rest of the drivel on these pages…
Wow, I came into this thread after the debate looking for some intelligent dicsussion and found the biggest Bush-whacking cluster fuck I’ve ever seen on this board. Good job, guys. Good job.
I’ll get the hell out of here and let you guys jerk each other off in relative privacy.
You’re the only one who seems to expect that. I don’t even expect that my reaction to the debates would be shared by the public at large. I am quite a bit smarter than the public at large and I don’t expect them to operate at my level.
Did I make a mistake watching the Debate on Fox? I’m waaaaaaaaaaay over the other side of the Pacific but I do have an interest in how this all turns out. I was gobsmacked when I heard the Fox people saying Bush had won the Debate.
Nah, it’s just Fox, being their usual “fair and balanced” selves.
Bush was certainly better than he was in the first two debates, despite his becoming almost a Johnny One-Note on education. But Kerry cranked his game up a couple of notches. Up until now, I was for Kerry because as an alternative to Bush, I’d be for any reasonably presentable candidate with common sense, a reasonable amount of brains, and a sense of responsibility. Kerry qualified on all counts.
But after last night, I am unequivocally for Kerry. This man will make a great President of the United States, not just because he’s not Bush, but because I’m convinced he’s the right man to lead us in a most challenging time.
Looks like Kerry moved the needle a bit already, btw. Looks like I wasn’t the only one.
44 rocked the house.
A friend of mine “shorted” Bush at tradesports two weeks ago when it was trading at 68.5; now it is down to 54.5. (That’s for a contract that pays $100 if Bush wins, $0 if he loses.)
I think a clear decision for Kerry. Most folks who watch aren’t going to go back and check facts, what they do is look at the demeanor. In that, Kerry clearly was calm, forceful, and presidential. Bush looked shrill and irritable, at times a bit out of it. Kerry’s one mistake: stating he would have a litmus test for Supreme Court vacancies. That is going to mobilize the anti-abortion crowd (of course,they vote in droves anyway).
There’s a certain irony in the juxtaposition of these two posts.
Of course, there’s also a certain irony in your posts all by themselves, Bricker. Your most consistent contribution to all three debate threads has been the same snarky one-liner. “I’m sure the polls will now swing Kerry’s way, right?” Of course, the polls did swing Kerry’s way the first time you asked that question, but that’s not important because they didn’t swing lots and lots, and your point really was that you were tired of sneering partisans with their snide putdowns, which you express by calling Kerry supporters in this thread “sneering partisans”, wallowing in “mutual admiration of their snide putdowns”.
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.
Before last night’s debate, I too, was a “Anything but Bush” voter. But after seeing Kerry in action and comparing him with Bush, I’m strongly FOR Kerry now. I think his vision of where to lead America is the right choice. He’s saying things that resonate with me and what I think is right for this country.
From http://www.politics1.com:
And from http://www.electoral-vote.com/:
THis is misleading, inasmuch as Drudge isn’t really part of the party, so his underhandedness is not a representation of Republican party underhandedness.
Consider: he claims that the Kerry Edwards campaign says to “CHARGE VOTER INTIMIDATION, EVEN IF NONE EXISTS.”
Really, the manual in question says to do the following thing if there’s not evidence of voter intimidation:
In other words, if there’s no evidence of voter intimidation in the current election cycle, still speak out on the issue, in order to prevent people from thinking they could get away with it.
Drudge is a liar, but your intimation that this is an underhanded tactic of the Republican party is baseless.
Daniel
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Min wage should be at least $10.00 an hour.
Do you know the potential repurcussions from this? I’m not commenting on whether it’s wise or not, but you know that there are no free lunches right?
Does this have all the credibility of the affair that Drudge alleged Kerry to have? Why not just cite from Rush Limbaugh’s website?
Ten dollars is nothing.
Of course, Drudge’s facts do not support his headline but what else is new?
Neither candidate sprouted wings or grew horns, so I’m at a loss who to give it to…