Slashdot Mirror
Real Presidential Debates
slithytove writes "As many of us are aware, the presidential debates are currently controlled by an organization called the Commision on Presidential Debates. As anyone who's seen a presidential debate recently could guess, the CPD does just what our two major parties want: exclude third parties and impose rules that make the event more of a joint press conference than a debate. Non-establishment candidates Michael Badnarik and David Cobb will be having an actual debate this Thursday. After debating each other, they will be rebutting the points Bush and Kerry make in their pseudo-debate. Free Market News will be streaming it and providing a download afterwards."
Do this actually matter though. They aren't legitimate candidates for Pres so do I really care what they ahve to say?
I have to say that since Bush and Kerry are the only legit candidates to get the job (notice my wording) that I don't care about the other debates.
Evolution or ID?
Are these taken serious? Taking bollocks and getting a reply thats bollocks and vice versa?
At least here in England with just hear the bollocks with no debate.
A question we have to ask oursevles is why did the jenemy attack the WTC, when there were more politically explosive (White House) and economically important (NY stock exchange) targets? My best guess is that it was due to the underlying symbol of the twin towers.
It's a well established fact of modern architecture that skyscrapers represent masculinity. I don't want to make it anymore explicit than that. The act of throwing up a huge public, tapering monument is very symbolic of what drives the world (note also that Architects are 89% male, which increases to 96% when you look at the top 100). So what they did on that fateful September day was no less than a direct attack on America's masculinity. Also note that the main victims of 9-11 were firefighters, which is an extremely masculine career.
If you accept this hypothesis, a number of interesting conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, consider the fact there were TWO towers, side by side, and what that might symbolise about permissive modern America. Next, remember that the Middle Eastern perpetrators were deeply conservative reactionaries, dedicated to justice that dates from biblical times, so this target must have subconsciously represented what they hate most in modern America. Also think about the vehement reaction from some quarters.
There are many types of reaction to an attack on masculinity. Those secure in their own proclivities and nature tend to handle it the best. The others may range from slight disquiet to full blown rage. It is the latter group that is in denial. Denial of their nature leads to inner repression, and then an outbursting of emotion when the feelings inside finally have an outlet. The next time you see, for example, a politician, ranting about the twin towers in a wholly overblown way, just remember what is REALLY motivating him. Just something to think about.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
I'm sure Kerry could debate himself for 90 minutes. It's called thinking, and it's a useful skill I wish Bush would attempt to learn.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
The debates don't matter, I'm sure they've locked bush in a room and are shock reinforcement him so that he can memo rise every question and every answer. I don't think Kerry has to. It's too bad that the press fucked over dean; he was probably the only worthy candidate since reagan or clinon. But, bush scares the hell out of me. Look at his eyes the guy is vacant. He's got the iq of a brain damaged monkey and the man controls nukes. This morning some other brain damaged soccer mom who needed to be shot and made sure that none of her children are allowed to live. Said that she will vote for bush because he will make America more secure. The truth is that bush has tuned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground and every terrorist in the world is planning to strike at America because of bush and his policy. If bush is reelected he will be responsible for the total annihilation of the USA. if you're terrified your not scared enough.
Most revealing about Kerry's
ability is his debate with John O'Neill, a fellow Vietnam vet who felt that Kerry was doing
a disservice to other soldiers by testifying against the war. It was on the Dick
Cavat show around 71, and you may have heard Kerry's reply ("You have
heard of the Geneva Convention, haven't you?") on some of the news networks. You
can find it here: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic= KerryONeill.
The best part about this clip is the historical perspective it adds for us
youngins. You may have heard of John Kerry's "unpopular anti-war stance" during
Vietnam. In this debate - the same one that jackass Hannity uses to claim that
Kerry admitted he "committed atrocities" - us kids can finally learn exactly
what Kerry said. It might seem odd to those of us who grew up in the last 25 or
so years to learn that Kerry and O'Neill are discussing whether atrocities
occurred in Vietnam.
That's right - he was accused by John O'Neill of slandering soldiers for
claiming they committed atrocities in Vietnam. Let's review:
1) My Lai was an atrocity committed in Vietnam, where soldiers murdered 500
civilians and a cover-up soon followed.
2) *Free-fire zones (where soldiers were to shoot anything that moved) and the
"search and destroy" missions Kerry and other soldiers took part in (RTFA) are
considered illegal under the Geneva Convention. Read here
[http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/free-fir e-zone s.html] for more.
*This is the clip Hannity produces (produced? I stopped watching anything but
C-SPAN months ago. They show the actual politicians talking about their ideas.
Only children would be content with the pundits on cable news, with the
exception of Neal Gabler on Fox News Watch. He's not in the media and is the
only honest voice on Fox and all of cable news. For fuck's sake, they don't even
discuss why we should agree with a policy on any level but the closest to the
subject. How can we know what we think unless we seriously investigate concepts
like duty and morality? Don't concepts such as those determine our ideas of
what government should even attempt to solve? Watch more C-SPAN, and read while
you do it).
3) American soldiers committed these acts.
CONCLUSION: American soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam, often with their
commanding officers knowledge.
This is an essential point for anyone wanting to understand the (current) media,
mainly because it's true, and we can compare it to what the they report. What
have we heard?
Well, John Kerry's speech really demoralized the troops. He came back and starts
talking about atrocities, and gosh, that can be a real bummer when you're
involved in an Asian land war. Especially one fought despite intelligence that
suggested little, if any, chance of victory. And Nixon was doing so well
getting those troops out of there in a speedy manner that we should have trusted
him to do the right thing, like LBJ. Or like Nixon eventually ended up doing
(with respect to everything).
This gets better.
So, John Kerry was attacked for protesting the war. It seems he said Vietnam was
a mistake and that soldiers committed atrocities. But we get bits and pieces of
falsehoods, like Hannity's clips, the ribbons/medals debate (POINTLESS, THAT'S
A SYMBOLIC ACTION YOU MORONS), people attacking him for "demoralizing the
troops", comments from SBVFT that contradict their own previous comments about
Kerry - some as recently as this year - and written testimony from nearly
everyone else who was there. The only other officer alive who was in the river
when Kerry earned his Bronze Star works as an editor for the Chicago Tribune.
His account agrees with the record, and, indeed, the events described in every official
file and by all but a handful of those who Kerry served with (quantifier: those who
actually served in the same