Personally I’m kind of happy that Kerry mentioned the “backdoor draft”.
The President can go on about there not being a draft because of the volunteer military all he wants, but the truth is that there is in fact a draft going on.
However, because it’s only affecting military personnel set to retire, or who have already done so, America doesn’t care.
Yeah, the draft question was interesting. I was mildly surprised (and, I guess, pleased) to hear Bush come out and so forcefully say that there would be no draft while he is president because the volunteer army “works”. But then Kerry had a great followup about how it’s not a “volunteer” army if you force extentions on people and never let them leave.
I’m not surprised in the slightest that Bush would forcefully come out and say there would be no draft, because rumors of such, even on “the internets”, hurt him politically no matter how silly they may sound.
It’s not a hard promise for him to make, providing you consider the phrase “no draft” to only apply to civilians. Between stop-loss measures preventing anyone currently in from leaving, and the ability to call up anyone who’s gotten out within the last ten years and still have a good number of them be viable soldiers, there’s plenty of people to force into service in the shadow draft and still not worry the voters about making them pay for the wars they want by actually putting their own children at risk.
I was irritated that the president didn’t truly understand the constitution of the US.George last night:
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.
That’s a personal opinion. That’s not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we’re all – you know, it doesn’t say that. It doesn’t speak to the equality of America.
What does it say George? He should know it by heart.
From http://www.usconstitution.net/
Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called “other persons,” are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, but uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate.
In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the “Importation” of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.
The Fugitive Slave Clause is the last mention. In it, a problem that slave states had with extradition of escaped slaves was resolved. The laws of one state, the clause says, cannot excuse a person from “Service or Labour” in another state. The clause expressly requires that the state in which an escapee is found deliver the slave to the state he escaped from “on Claim of the Party.”
Until the 13th amendment , slavery was legal according to the constitution.
Call me silly, but I don’t expect the average citizen to memorize constituional history, but I do expect all law makers to know it like the way they know the names of thier children.
The CW is showing a pretty clear Kerry victory today, if not a large victory.
But the Gallup poll internals show that Kerry won amongst independants 53%-37%. So, if Kerry’s goal was to connect with the “mushy middle”, I’d say he won hands down.
From that Gallup poll, 37% of those polled believe that President Bush “expressed himself more clearly”? Wow. I get the feeling Bush could have squatted down, taken a dump on the middle of the carpet and started a shit fight and that same 37% would think he was “dignified”.
83% of Republicans thought Bush won. 87% of Democrats thought Kerry won. So in other words, your opinion of the debaters’ performance has more to do with what party you’re already registered with, NOT what was said in the debate.
That’s pathetic, no matter which side you’re on.
Well, IMO, the second debate became the debate of issues. And for the most part, I think people who vote democrat think Kerry’s ideas are good things, while those who vote republican think that Bush’s ideas are good things. I know that’s how it was for me. I think 90% of Bush’s ideas are bad, and I like about 80% of Kerry’s ideas, so when the two just start throwing rhetoric back and forth, I will end up siding with Kerry’s rhetoric because I happen to agree with it, even if it is not good debate style.
With the first debate, Bush was pitiful enough that even the party lines couldn’t hold that well for him. Second debate was… well… debatable!
That’s not suprising to me; we filter information based on our preconceived notions all the time. I’m going with a tie on this one; Bush was better prepared and felt more comfortable spouting off those little one-liners that play to large sections of America (while I filter them as “arrogant smugness”)
It’s good to see the large Kerry lead among independents, though. I’m hoping Bush won’t be able to completely overcome the negative perception following his miserable performance in the first debate, just like Gore never got past the “stiff” label that he gave off in his first debate.
83% of Republicans say they thought Bush won. Remember, if you don’t think he won, you’re not supporting the President and our troops overseas. You’re sending mixed messages and supporting the terrorists.
Not really. 83% seems like a dismal score for an incumbant President to have during a debate when most people agree, he did better than expected -and- during a time that’s supposed to be “the most polarized time in history.”
But I am curious about why you think it’s pathetic. First off, both candidates, in my view, did very well and neither hit the home run or slammed their opponent. Also, bias is going to figure into it. If I’m pro-life, I’m going to like Bush’s answer more in that area. If I believe trial lawyers are the problem, then I’m going to think Bush won that too. If Canadian medicine scares me, then, again, Bush. And if I’m a fiscal conservative, I’m going to prefer Kerry’s answers. If I believe that doubting the war hurts the soldiers and blindly supporting the war helps our soldiers, then Bush wins again. See? What’s said will never matter more than what’s believed by the audience going into it.
Yeah and don’t you forget it.
Because this country is chock full of people like Zarathustra.
[/quote]
Yeah and don’t you forget it.[/quote]
Believe me… I don’t. Not for a second. It’s the biggest reason that I think this country deserves Mr. Bush. Well… that, or the American system of democracy needs to be scrapped entirely. Not sure which, actually.
Well, when you can muster some certitude you let me know what you want to replace American democracy with.
Well, when you can muster some certitude you let me know what you want to replace American democracy with.
Psst - you’re not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition.
:P
I think mainly because it taps into my frustration that many people seem to be letting their vote hinge on their affiliation (perhaps lifetime) with one party instead of objectively looking at facts. It’s like rooting for sports teams. You (they hypothetical “you”)don’t know the people under the uniforms. You’re just rooting for a team no matter what. That’s fine --even fun-- for sports, but it seems totally inappropriate here.
That being said, another explanation that occured to me shortly after I made my previous post is exactly what you and someone else described: People consider the victor of a debate to be the one who expouses values, beliefs, and objectives similar to their own. So if someone says things that are generally what I believe are true or desirable, then that person has done a better job of portraying himself as the right candidate, and thus has “won” the debate.
So yeah, that makes sense. But I suspect that there’s just a lot of blind rooting for the guy in the red/blue uniform going on, too.
Prepositions are terrible for ending sentences on.
The rule against ending a preposition is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put! – Winston Churchill
Yes. I mean, I like to think I can objectively score a debate and tell you who “won”. But who “won” doesn’t really matter if I don’t like what that debater stands for. What’s really frustrating you here is that Bush is a lousy candidate. And that doesn’t seem to bother the people who agree with his agenda. I’m not even going to go into how Bush’s record and agenda go against huge portions of traditional GOP platforms.
You mean the American Republic, don’t you?
I’m ready to give things a spin and replace that with a more democratic system if you are…