Slashdot Mirror
Presidential Debates Set
The debates are set, there will be four of them: Sept. 30, Oct. 8, and Oct. 13, and Oct. 5 for the VPs. All are at 9 p.m. Eastern. Get more details and read the memorandum of understanding (it is unreadable in Preview for me, I had to use Acrobat). There's not much different in here than in previous years. Says CNN: "A senior Kerry source said the Bush campaign was 'hung up' over whether a light or something audible like a buzzer would be used to tell the candidates when their time is up. A Bush official acknowledged that last-minute questions, mostly over the time cue issue, held up the agreement." In related news, it appears the first debate proposed by the truly nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission, scheduled for this Wednesday in Columbus, isn't going to happen.
Typical of politicians to get stuck on the least important decisison...
According to "the Economist", however, Kerry is already "kebabized" over Vietnam and his changing mind over the Iraq war, while Bush is very hard to kebabize about his military record the silver spoon he had in his mouth when he was born, and "probably up his nose", and also because he is constantly underestimated.
People have already started voting thanks to loose absentee rules in several states, electronic voting machines are everywhere, districts are gerrymandered, the vote is amplified by the electoral colleges, and everyone has already accepted the result thanks to biased polls.
Google passes Turing test : see my journal
All this about bush being stupid, but Kerry was on the faily show and he said 'bush has never lost a debate he has been in'
It should be an interesting battle. I doubt kerry will win
I'm personally a Kerry supporter, but I don't think his campaign has been handled terribly well. One of the most frequent complaints I've seen levied against Kerry has been that he hasn't presented a clear plan for what he would do if he were president. People seem to feel that, whether or not they agree with what Bush says, he seems very forward in his message and they feel like they have a good idea what to expect if he served another term. Kerry, on the other hand, has given vague suggestions about what he'd do, but hasn't presented much in the way of a solid plan. Now, his attacks this week about Iraq were quite a bit more specific than what he's done in the past, but Iraq is such a volatile issue that I doubt it's going to rally undecided voters much.
Edwards will likely do well in the vice presidential debate, regardless of how Kerry does, just by virtue as coming across as generally more likeable than Cheney. This probably won't mean much, of course. But if Kerry comes out and answers questions directly, without trying to skirt the issues, he could see quite a gain from his debate performance. He's a much better speaker than Bush, and if he comes out directly with solid goals for when he becomes president, he could raise undecided voters' passion quite a bit.
Of course, who knows what Kerry will actually do. I don't have that much confidence that he'll be able to pull it off. But I think if he makes a solid effort to present himself as decisive in the debates, it could very well change the momentum in the election. Or he may just fuck it up like he's been doing the rest of the campaign. We'll have to wait and see.
hot foreign sheep.
Don't you mean Bush is misunderestimated ?
Get your Unix fortune now!
and it's not Kerry. I'm voting for myself, and you should too.
That might be because Kerry decided to run on his Vietnam service and his 15 positions on Iraq..
districts are gerrymandered
In a presidential district the only state that districts matter are ME an NB (total 10 EV).
the vote is amplified by the electoral colleges
As it is intended to be, we are a federal Republic not a direct democracy
and everyone has already accepted the result thanks to biased polls
The same polls had Kerry Winning two months ago? If kerry loses this its because he refused to define himself as anything other than a vietnam vet who would do "everything" "different" in Iraq (note the specifics he has given)..
Not surprisingly, chaos follows the presidential race wherever it goes. For example, for the VP debates at CWRU on October 5, classes are cancelled for the entire day, and faculty, staff, and students are discouraged from going to any of the buildings on the same quad as the building where the debate is to be held. The field in front of that building already has a bunch of prefab platforms laid out on it, presumably to provide extra parking for the event (despite the presence of a six-story parking garage immediately next to that building). There is also no guarantee that any students will receive tickets to the event.
Rumor has it that the school also paid $4 million to host the VP debate, and the only seeming benefits for this are a small boost in name recognition (likely to be surrounded by confusion regarding the school's rather cumbersome name, "Case Western Reserve University"), and the opportunity to have two advertisements on CNN situated in an almost-relevant context.
A very good idea, no matter which side of the fence you're on. Debates have gotten so stale, even the most stalwart arm chair politicians have a hard time swallowing them. The 2000 Bush-Gore debates were just awful because of their predictability and the absense of real political discourse.
Citizen's Debate Commission is made of people all over the spectrum who want to bring back real debates, where the candidates answer actual unscreened questions from actual human beings. Count me in.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
or:
Mindboggling, but I suppose given the stakes that's not surprising.
I guess the following is to protect Bush or Kerry's ass if either stuffs up majorly:
As if a major faux pas (or pratfall!) wouldn't get media coverage anyway, but I guess it's not as bad as if it was used in an opposition campaign ad...
Can someone explain this to me? I'm not sure what is meant by it:
But what irks me most is that the format does not allow sufficient time for comprehensive, you know - debate. Come on: 120 seconds for a statement, 90 seconds for a rebuttal and a maximum of a further 60 seconds split between both candidates for extended discussion (and then only at the moderator's discretion)?
Coupled with the following:
I know there are a lot of topics and only so much time, but this isn't going to lead to debate (as I understand the term) but a series of extended and pre-rehearsed soundbites. And the inability to actually ask your opponent questions strikes me as stupid and cowardly (what are these guys afraid of?), but I guess I'm used to a parliamentary model where candidates are at each other's throats much more directly.
Incidentally, I wonder how often the domestic/economic questions will be turned into homeland "security" questions, viz economic security, healthcare security, unborn child security, national park preservation
a world in progress...
Your sig: "America: fast becoming a militant fascist theocracy"
Maybe this is a better understanding:
The U.S. government's militant behavior has not been fast. The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since World War II.
The violent behavior has nothing to do with religion. Bush only discusses religion so that he can get votes. The U.S. government has been an equal opportunity killer: 3,000,000 people killed since World War II, most of them in Vietnam. The people killed were from many religions.
The U.S. government violence is not really fascist. It is profitist. I don't think those who want profit care about politics, they only engage in manipulating government because that brings easy profit. On the other hand, caring only about money eventually causes the rigid behavior that might be called fascism, but is really a kind of mental illness.
The system works by creating fear so that citizens will allow rich people to engage in secret and not-so-secret violence for profit. Cheney is doing some of the not secret part now, by implying that a vote for Kerry is a vote for a terrorist attack.
Alcoholics are often very likable on the surface; they are anything but likable in reality. They have such inner conflict that they are not easily able to be analytical. Their thoughts are so disorganized that they cannot express complicated ideas easily.
Bush acts exactly like recovered alcoholics usually act: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration.. See points 1 through 13.
Most of what Bush says was written by someone else.
--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to make himself look good.
at least get your sentence in french correctly
"les français sont des singes capitulards mangeurs de fromages".
As Dave Berry said, the French on the opposite think that the Americans are overweight burger munching trigger happy ignorant religious zealots driving gas-guzzling SUVs, and like all nationalistic clichés, this is also true.
Google passes Turing test : see my journal
This reminds me of the 2000 debates, when Gore was supposedly a great debater and Bush was expected to do terrible. He actually did okay in debating Gore, and since the expectations of Bush were so low, he 'won".
If the Kerry campaign is smart they will find a way to lower the expectations about his performance in the debates.
Maybe this is the tactic they are applying ala Kerrys comments on the Dialy Show, etc...
Either way, with 25% +/- of the voting public keenly interested in the debates, and a 5 point race, both have some serious work cut out for them.
Most likely the debates will be nothing more than an extension of the current trend of campaigns: Smoke and Mirrors.
The real substance, fire, and destruction is in Iraq. One day we might hear the real story of why we fight/die for oil. We could let the Middle East eat sand if we implemented tighter fuel efficiency laws etc.. but I digress. As does this election.
Am I the only one that finds it frightening that someone could wait until a month before an election, and hope to make up their minds based on a debate? When you have a four year presidential record and a 19 year senate record to consider, how can a couple hours of talk convince you of anything?
In my mind, the "undecided" voter is just about the most foolish creature on earth. A political campain will tell you what you want to hear. A record speaks volumes about what you can expect.
The old cliche holds, talk is cheap.
... condition 1.(d) where the top two effectively lock-out anyone else from being heard in the debate forum. Too bad we don't have a more open and less commercial political system.
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
And I dont even think we should whine they are racist for saying that
Moderator: Targeted specific question about exact concrete details that you would do the next four years in your administration.
Candidate: Mom and apple pie generalities that everyone recognizes as good, that I'm for and, by implication, my opponent is against.
This recipe will be followed by both Bush and Kerry. People will watch for visual and audio cues that help them emotionally identify with what they already believe and cheer and boo as if they're at a sporting event.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
What part of Fahrenheit 9/11 didn't you like? Didn't you like the network footage that shows George W. Bush holding hands with Saudi Prince Bandar? No one denies that the clip is real, or that the Bush family calls him "Bandar Bush".
Didn't you like the part of the movie that shows network footage of Bush failing to react for 7 1/2 minutes after he had been told the nation was attacked? No one claims that didn't happen.
Do you think that the Congress actually did read the "Patriot" Act before passing it? Even when one Congressman in the film said they didn't?
Didn't you like the very limited coverage that discussed the connection between Bush and the very Saudi Arabians like Prince Bandar who Osama bin Laden, and Senator Biden of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations both say are causing difficulty in Saudi Arabia?
Do you deny that George W. Bush's father and a brother of Osama bin Laden both attended a meeting held by the Carlyle Group on the September 10, 2001, or that both were invested in arms manufacturers?
Maybe Fahrenheit 9/11 is not expressed in a way you would like, but most of the problems it discussed are real, without question.
Disliking Michael Moore is not an answer to the problems the U.S. faces.
dario, Don't be so down, I am a Bush supporter, but I think the election is far from over. Kerry could score big in the debates. It just to soon to give up.
Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
it is unreadable in Preview for me, I had to use Acrobat
Confirmed. And for those of you who haven't yet had the joy of Mac OS X, Preview is the built-in file viewer which handles PDFs admirably, or at least did up until this document.
On Topic: the memorandum says that only "soft" supporters for either candidate will be allowed to pose questions, literally using the word "soft" in quotation marks. I'm curious how they'll measure softness in the audience, which apparently will be up to the Gallup organization. (I guess "hard" supporters may well ask "hard" questions, which just happen to be the questions I'd like answered.)
I should add that I agree that Michael Moore is very imperfect as a filmmaker. However Fahrenheit 9/11 has already grossed $203,561,908 on a $6 million investment. It is by far the most popular documentary of all time, in the entire world.
Even the 35 books reviewed in Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government don't discuss all the corruption. Michael Moore did a far from perfect job, but it is very difficult to present all that he did in just 2 hours.
--
Bush's education improvements were partly fraud
Ack it was too early in the morning, that should read in a presidential election the only states that a district matters is ME and NB..
"The guy is not the brightest president we have but I very much doubt he is actually below average, let alone stupid."
That all comes down to you grouping.
If you are looking at past US leaders, Bush most certainly is below average.
If you are looking at the population of the US as a whole, then he seems to be about average.
I confess curiosity. Just which state is it that is identified with the abbreviation "NB"?
Dyolf Knip
"The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions."
Fuck that!
They shouldn't be wasting ANY time on that crap. They should be focusing on what THEIR agenda and what THEIR plans are.
NO rhetorical questions.
But I do believe that each side should be able to submit 2 or 3 questions to be asked of both of them. That way they can highlight their strong points and illustrate their opponent's weak points. But the questions must be submitted prior to the debate.
Moderator: Targeted specific question about exact concrete details that you would do the next four years in your administration.
Kerry: Patriotism, I am not Bush, purple heart, I am not Bush.
Bush: 9/11, fear, terrorists, tax cut.
It's New Bushistan. They weren't kidding about the elections in Iraq.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Sorry meant NE
I see the average person (in your opinion) is smart enought to get an MBA from harvard and fly a fighter interceptor
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Are either of these men really worthy enough to be President? Should we care less about the election and possibly the debates if they both have deeply flawed visions of America?
Bush is not good in situations where an unexpected topic is being covered, my personal belief is he is not a good public speaker (not a sign of stupidity) If you feel sorry for your President, then that person isn't a very strong leader. Public speaking and the ability to debate are two very important skills for a President. You need to be able to convince other countries that your side is right. Bush has failed to do that, in part because he's a horrible speaker. During this Iraq war, - Bush FAILED to convince the international community and America on the presence of WMD in Iraq. - Bush FAILED to convince our allies to come to our side, some of whom have been our ally for over 50 years. As a result, our "Strong coalition" consists of 90% American soldiers and the American taxpayers are funding 90% of cost to rebuild Iraq, which is now at over $200 billion. The UK makes up another 5%. Big fucking whoop.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
The 2000 Bush-Gore debates were just awful because of their predictability and the absense of real political discourse.
They were awful, but they had an impact on the election. Gore acted like a snotty punk in the first debate and everyone saw it. His demeanor and poor judgement said a lot; anyone playing politics at his level that is still underestimating GWB is a fool. He showed up with a bad attitude and hurt himself.
Kerry won't make that mistake; he's too far down in the polls to have any misunderstanding about who he's dealing with. But Kerry is a career populist and I think his insincerity will show. If he launches into a Michael Moore type tirade he's going to find out just how fringe that crap really is.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Nebraska?
God I hate the 20 second limit on posting. It only takes me 12 seconds to type Nebraska, typing really slowly.
But it looks like it could still be anyone's race- less than 20 Electoral College Votes separate the candidates in the lates polls, and at least three states (Ohio, Pensylvania, and Florida) have more than 20 EVs and are in a statistical dead heat.
In other news, my home state of Oregon is back in solid Kerryville- so I might end up voting Libertarian yet.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Debates are simply a forum for politicians to read their scripted lines: all show and no substance. The handlers have told the politicians what to emphasize and what to avoid at the debates. For the same reason, interviews with politicians during the campaign season are pointless.
If you want to know how the politicians will act once they are elected, then study their votes in the years prior to the election. What were their positions on the major issues?
Look at the border with Mexico. Both Kerry and Bush claim that they oppose illegal immigration. Yet, neither has done anything to enforce the borders.
If you hate what is happening to our country, the USA (which is firmly grounded in Western culture), then join me in writing the following on the November ballot.
president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce
They cannot win in the upcoming election since they have not formally registered as candidates, according to the rules of most states. However, if they garner a sizeable portion of the votes, then they can have a "Perot Effect". Although Perot lost the election, the Republicans incorporated most of his ideas in the "Contract with America", of which most was enacted into law.
Flying a jet does not require high intelligence.
And if you'll look at Bush's scores, you'll see that he was BELOW the median (by 180 points) for his test scores when he was originally admitted to Yale.
So, yes, the average person is quite capable of doing exactly what Bush did PROVIDED that that person has all the political and financial advantages that Bush did.
Badnarik is on 49 ballots.
Cobb is in 28 ballots.
Nader is on 44 ballots
Peroutka is on 39 ballots.
All four candidates have the potential to win the Electoral College due to the states on which they have ballot access.
Why does the "nonpartisan" debate commission insist on excluding every candidate that can win?
With the Democratic Primary debates we saw that you can have a debate with 10 candidates, so why not have one with 6?
It is a shame that Republicans talk about economic freedom and Democrats talk about personal freedom, but at the end of the day neither party wants you to have POLITICAL FREEDOM!
James Fallows recently wrote an article for The Atlantic Monthly about the debate styles of Kerry and Bush.
Some interesting highlights of the article were that:
- Neither candidate has really been "defeated" in a debate thus far.
- Bush's speaking style has changed over the past 15 years or so. In the past he spoke in a much more coherent, less-broken fashion.
- Despite the appearance of ignorance, Bush is sharper than he comes across.
- Bush relies on coming into the debate as a favored underdog. As with his debate with the sharp and expressive Ann Richards for governor showed, the expectations built up for Bush were as low as a snake's chin. If he even showed up for the debate people wanted to give him a B+ just because he managed to be there.
- Bush's temper can flare up and he can become angry under certain rare circumstances (some Republican primary debate with McCain in the mid atlantic states brought this out, IIRC.)
An interesting article.I'm much more interested to see the VEEP debates. Cheney, the de facto Head of Government (Bush is the US Head of State), is intelligent and ruthless. Edwards' southern drawl might lull people to believe he's just a hick, but he's one of the sharpest trial lawyers in the country.
As far as I'm concerned, the Presidential debates will be minor league spat compared to the blood and wounds that the contenders in the VP debates will inflict.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
"His scores were below the median for *YALE* students, hardly a dumb crowd."
I didn't say the Yale students were dumb. I said Bush was average.
566 verbal
640 math
The average for seniors was:
463 verbal
510 math
488,793 students tested.
So, to AGAIN answer your question, YES, an average person CAN get an MBA from Harvard (with the appropriate political and financial backing) AND that person CAN learn to fly jets.
We HAD to invade because the UN wasn't doing anything?
Check the FACTS.
No "WMD's".
No support for Osama.
No threat to the US.
It seems that the UN had the right idea. No invasion necessary. Keep the inspections going.
"Where are your fucking WMD? A "Capability" to make WMD? Give me a break, there are 100 countries with a "Capability", and there always have been. Should we invade them all?"
... ... ...
From the LATEST hand-picked inspection team (which replaced the LAST hand-picked inspection team after that one said that there weren't any weapons or facilities, which had to be hand-picked because the UN team said that they couldn't find any weapon or facilities) there aren't any weapons or facilities or capability.
The BEST they could come up with is the DESIRE
to one day have the ability
to one day build the facility
that would one day build a "WMD".
With that criteria, EVERYONE who ever said anything bad about the US would be on our invasion list.
"Not sure if you've noticed, but Spain, Italy & the Phillipines have all pulled out. I think they agree with me."
Not only that, but their POPULATIONS were against the actions of their governments. Which is one of the reasons that we saw Spain's government replaced in their last election.
The non-partisan Citizens' Debate Commission has no commitments from either major party candidate. It is questionable whether any third-party candidate would meet the CDC participation criteria this year (last year, both Buchanan and Nader would have qualified).
The issue go beyond who participates, however. Under the two-party debate commission, the events are more like alternating sound bites than real debates, and the questions are carefully selected to accentuate differences between the Rs and Ds, while critical issues that they prefer not to bring up simply are squelched. See http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/citiz ens_debate_commission_proposal.html for convincing evidence of this (ReclaimDemocracy.org was the instigator of the Citizens' Debate Commission and I volunteered briefly when they began organizing). Much more interesting background on this controversy is available there: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/debat es_resources.html and at: http:opendebates.org
You're exactly right--I should have clarified that the candidates as yet are not paying attention to Citizens' Debate Commission.
One reason they don't like the CDB is the CDB wants to sometimes give third party candidates a shot. If a candidate is polling at 5% or higher, or if 50% of people think the candidate should be included in debates, then the CDB would include them.
I read the Rules of Agreement between the Pubs and Dems, and very early on is an agreement to exclusivity--that neither candidate will appear in any real forum to debate another candidate. Nor may either candidate challenge the other to another debate.
And control has a lot to do with it. When they do the town meeting debate, all invited "citizens" must submit their questions to the moderator days in advance, who will hand-pick which ones to use. If the person changes the question, the moderator will immediately turn off the person's microphone. They will also turn off the person's microphone to prevent any follow-up comments or questions from the person.
The podiums will be exactly 48 inches high, exactly ten feet apart as measured from the middle of the left-right span, etc. The parties will review and approve all camera positions in advance, and no audience members may be shown during the debate except the person asking a question in the town meeting one. Also, there will be no picture-in-picture shots of the other candidate while one candidate is answering a question.
Sounds about as interesting as spending the evening in a secluded hospital room--sanitized, with nothing to engage the mind.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
These two clearly don't have that much confidence in debating on real solutions if they keep blocking everyone else who could really pose a threat during the debates.
This will be the usual boring debates of old.
But it looks like it could still be anyone's race- less than 20 Electoral College Votes separate the candidates in the lates polls,
Uh, no. It's Sep 21, and Bush is ahead in the latest poll by 107 electoral votes. That's how the winner-take-all distribution of Electoral College votes turns a 6% lead into 35%.
The only thing that can save Kerry is a major Bush fumble, either during the debates, or some foreign-policy blunder.
The question was:
0 310250) that we are in this war because of the UN. Explain that.
"How did the UN get us in a war in Iraq?"
You replied:
"I did not support the war but I also did not support endless sancations and inaction by the UN while they scammed money for oil, err I mean oil for food.."
I did not ask what you supported or did not support. You had CLAIMED (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122579&cid=1
The Bush administration making such a fuss over how Bush would know when his time is up and refusing to let Kerry question him directly is exactly the kind of stuff that shows Bush's incompetence is irrelevant because it's so well covered up by his very talented campaign staff. Everything he says will have been scripted and thoroughly rehearsed, so expect him to be ever so slightly off the main topic of some questions as he searches for the best fit rehearsed speech. He will have the edge over Kerry in the debate.
and on another note about the debates..
While the debates are held on-campus at colleges in large auditoriums, VERY few students (25 is the magic number here at the University of Miami, site of the 1st debate) are allowed to attend the debate. Aren't they supposed to be trying very hard to rally the younger voters this election? The Kerry campaign is at least, so I suspect this was also Bush's doing as he has no regard or interest in anyone except the base of staunch conservatives in his party. Oh well, on the other hand we do get free food at a huge debate watch party.
Posted anonymously because I'm not usually one for tin-foil hats, but my username is so unique and I've been using it for so many years, there's no doubt in my mind a government database search of it would turn up my real name and SSN, and the Republicans sure do love to deny those who oppose them government jobs, especially the Bush admin.
If their daddy is one of the most powerful politicians in the country, absolutely.
I believe you mean misunderestimated.
harmonious design
Having a daddy will get you into yale, or a good school (like Gore and Kerry), But it will not get you an SAT 30% above the national average, nor will it fly a jet for you..
#1. "...these included targeting planes in the no-fly zone, ..."
..."
The "no-fly zone" is a US construct. It was not in any UN order.
#2. "... kicking out inspectors in 1998
Iraq did NOT kick out the inspectors. The UN pulled them out to protect them when we threatened air strikes in Iraq.
#3. "...and mis-using the oil for food program."
Big deal. How was that a threat to the US?
#4. "The US, UK, Italy, Poland and others decided to do something about as the UN (France and Russia who were owed money by Saddam) refused to act on the multitude of threats it put to Iraq."
So, we had to invade because the UN wouldn't sanction our invasion? WTF?
#5. "Finally the US did something about it, if the UN had enforced its own mandates peharps the burden sharing would be a such that the us had the capacity to move into the Sudan."
Stay on topic. This is about Iraq.
And you claim that because the UN didn't sanction an invasion of Iraq, that the US was forced to invade Iraq. Again, WTF?
Seems like you've already established in your mind that there had to be an invasion.
Yet all of the FACTS (no "WMD's", no facilities to build "WMD's", no secret programs researching "WMD's") seem to indicate that the UN's approach had worked, was working and there is nothing to show that the UN's approach would not CONTINUE to work.
So WHAT did the UN do that FORCED the US to invade?
Seems like you're a little short on the FACTS of the situation.
"So bush got more than twelve hundred when the nation average was under a thousand... how is he just aveage again?"
:D
Average is a range. I suppose if he had scored 1 point above the mathematical average, you'd be claiming he was "above average". Wouldn't you?
You will remember that I posted how he was 180 points below the median for Yale students? The average Yale student scores at the high end of the SAT. Bush wasn't at the high end.
He was in the average range.
"Is it possible to buy a degree?"
DUH! Of course it is.
"But I dont care who your father is it wont fly a jet for you.."
Your ORIGINAL question was whether the average person could fly a jet. And, given Bush's scores, the obvious answer is "YES".
You might not like that, but the scores show it.
Go ahead. Find one and post a link to it.
"Yale students are at the extreem end of the scale."
Do you have support for that statement? From the math I see, their median score was only 180 points higher than Bush's.
You do know what "median" means, right?
"Your proof he is of average intelligents is that he was below the median at *YALE*, pardon me if I dont buy that as some kind of "proof" he is just average. I bet a C student at Yale has more upstairs than B students at some other university."
You need to do more research.
#1. He was a "C" student at Phillips Andover.
#2. His freshman year at Yale, he was in the 21st percentile. 80% of the people there were doing better than him.
"Your proof he is of average intelligents is that he was below the median at *YALE*, pardon me if I dont buy that as some kind of "proof" he is just average."
No, the proof is his test scores and his grades. His SAT's put him in the 70th percentile. Look up "bell curve" sometime. Because you don't want to believe it does not make change the facts of the situation.
"I bet a C student at Yale has more upstairs than B students at some other university."
Possibly. But you offer nothing other than your beliefs to support that.
Meanwhile, I have presented the FACTS that Bush was not at the top of the pile. Nor was he even close to the top of the pile. He was average.
I'm not seeing any place where it talks about authorizing a US invasion.
:D
Maybe you linked the wrong one?
I don't have a link, but I believe in a six-way race Nader was drawing 2% with Cobb and Badnarik drawing 1% each with Pteroutka registering under 1%.
If I recall during the Democratic debates Carol Moseley Braun, Dennis Kucinich averaged well under 5% in most polls. Yet they were never excluded from the debates. Why?
"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660"
t m
Resolution 678 (1990)
Resolution 678 that was passed in the year 1990.
You're referencing a resolution for the WRONG WAR.
It's even from the wrong DECADE.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0660.h
The Security Council,
Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,
Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,
Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;
2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;r
3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;
4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.
Hee hee hee.....
That might be because Kerry decided to run on his Vietnam service and his 15 positions on Iraq.
OK, I'll bite. Give me at least one example where Kerry has "flip flopped" on Iraq.
Only if you're looking at the incredibly biased Gallup Poll. Electoral-Vote which uses the more scientific Zogby poll mainly, actually shows Kerry in the lead by 16 electoral votes as of September 22. (I checked yesterday- and Bush was ahead by about 20 votes yesterday). However, like I said, WAY more than 20 votes are still up for grabs- this could still be anybody's race.
Oh, and as for foreign policy blunders- it will be hard for Bush to top the blunder that Iraq has turned into. 15,000 dead so far between Iraq and US sides, more than three times the number killed in the 9-11 attack. So in addition to failing on winability and reaction, Iraq now also fails the Just War Theory Tests on Porportionality.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Your neigbhour down south has been both for more than 100 years, so I don't understand why so many USians in this forum (or is it always you?) keep insisting about this stupid non issue.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
http://www.kerryoniraq.com/factsheet.asp
Do your own research next time....
incredibly biased Gallup Poll.
Actually that mainly comes from ARG.
Electoral-Vote which uses the more scientific Zogby poll mainly,
Actually they only use Zogby 23% of the time. But that is more focused on the swing states that actually matter. Interestingly, for the most swinging state of all, Florida, Electoral-Vote uses Ramussen, not Zogby.
it will be hard for Bush to top the blunder that Iraq has turned into. 15,000 dead so far between Iraq and US sides,
Yes, that's exactly why Kerry is in so much trouble. Bush has screwed up very badly and is still in the lead, so it's hard to imagine anything he could do worse in the next month to lose him the election.
Would be fine- but if you look at the latest EV website- Kerry is in the lead, not Bush. I wasn't aware they were using the other polls much- for my state (Oregon) the few times they've used other polling systems the race has been a LOT closer- even though everybody I know, including several Republicans, are voting for Kerry.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I heard that people who heard the debate over the radio swore that Nixon won.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I suspect that a lot of it is that most people are not apt public speakers. Therefore, Bush, with his verbal mishaps and awkward style, appeals to people. They can say, "Hey, I get the same way when I get onto a podium. He's just like me." *shrug* Honestly, my opinion on Bush's speaking style has gone back and forth. At first, I thought he simply was a lousy public speaker who was over his head, but more and more, I get the impression that part of it's a persona that he uses to ingratiate himself to people. He's brighter than he looks or sounds most of the time.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.