<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Oct 9 2004, 02:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Oct 9 2004, 02:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> um, so are you proposing that candidates shouldn't make any significant promises that they can be held accountable to? road to police state, here we come.
obviously kerry is playing both sides of the issue here. he wants to dodge the question because he doesn't want to get in trouble with his conservative supporters (the ones that are too disillusioned with Bush to vote for him) and seem like an extreme liberal by flat-out refusing to pledge to not raising taxes, but he clearly wants to leave the door open to future tax increases, because i'm sure that's one of the things he'll be first to address if he's elected (getting rid of Bush's "OMG 1%" tax cuts). there's a career politician for you.
Whether or not that's a healthy thing for government, is a matter for another discussion. But suffice it to say, I think most career politicians are a plague on our country.
*edit* basically the whole of mainstream politics is to appear as moderate as possible before the election, appeal to the broadest groups of people, and once elected, screw over your constituents as much as possible. except where you don't have term limits. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What a nice long post. Too bad it was entirely irrelevant.
Asking if he won't raise taxes is a rediculously open-ended question. Kerry needs to raise taxes on imports to discourage outsourcing. I'd say he needs to raise taxes on the upper crust just to undo what Bush did. Hell, something might come up and require an emergency tax levy.
It's a stupidly stupid question that anyone with brains can realize is stupid to answer. Either Kerry says 'I won't raise taxes' and looks like an **** when he has to do something to ANY tax bracket, or he says 'I will raise taxes' and looks like an ****, even if he wasn't talking about the middle class American.
it's obvious that they're talking about income taxes. anyway, are you just saying that when the question nails him on something he'd rather not answer, it's "just to bait him," yet when it's something that he can field without ****ing off a lot of people, it's a valid and fair question?
Alcapwn"War is the science of destruction" - John AbbotJoin Date: 2003-06-21Member: 17590Members
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Oct 9 2004, 02:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Oct 9 2004, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 9 2004, 11:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 9 2004, 11:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The man asked Kerry to look into the camera and pledge that he wouldn't raise taxes. And he basically looked into the camera, said yes, and proceeded to talk about why his plan would work.
That isn't pledging. For a pledge, you start off by saying "I pledge to..." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know what's stupider - the pledge posed to Kerry, or your response to it.
Seriously, that's like asking him to make a pledge not to make any new laws. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Then why didnt he just say no?
Why did he have to say yes, then talk about his retarted plan?
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Oct 9 2004, 02:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Oct 9 2004, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 9 2004, 11:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 9 2004, 11:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The man asked Kerry to look into the camera and pledge that he wouldn't raise taxes. And he basically looked into the camera, said yes, and proceeded to talk about why his plan would work.
That isn't pledging. For a pledge, you start off by saying "I pledge to..." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know what's stupider - the pledge posed to Kerry, or your response to it.
Seriously, that's like asking him to make a pledge not to make any new laws. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh I guess it was just me being stupid. I mean, what business does a guy like me, an american citizen, have for assuring our future leader carries out his promises to me?
Maybe it was a hook and bait, but it was a legitimate question to ask Kerry. If he can carry such a thing out, he should pledge on it. If he cannot, he should say no. Simple as that. The guy wasn't asking anything more than the truth. If a politician cannot deliver that, I won't vote on him.
EEK, maybe you are saying I'm stupid because you like Kerry so much that you won't see beyond the simple facts. Kerry didn't pledge. He was being 100% politician by not lying, yet not pledging at the same time. To be perfectly honest, most of what Kerry says lies within the realm of popular majority. It's inconsistent with a lot of what he voted on in the senate, but hey.. when you're running for president, a lot of what you say or believe makes radical changes, right?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html' target='_blank'>FactCheck.org</a>
Bush clearly won the second debate, kerry, of course, won the first debate. I think the problem is that the morons probably didn't read that it was a vote for the 2ND dabate, not the 1ST. Too bad nader cant go to the debate, it would be funnier that way.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 9 2004, 12:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 9 2004, 12:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 9 2004, 02:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 9 2004, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And the Democrats think Bush says stupid things.....
John F. Kerry speaks:
[Stuff]
I'd have to say that Kerry ruined whatever reputation he had for being smarter than Bush. Both bush and kerry are very nervous during the debates, so I can hardly blame them. Both are susceptable to mistakes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Someone's ignorant, but it ain't Kerry . . .
<a href='http://www.snopes.com/quotes/candidate.asp' target='_blank'>pwned.</a> Oh, and FYI, The first quote is similar to something <i>Bush</i> said.
Sayeth he: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->More and more of our imports come from overseas<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea, I was going to say, "Those look exactly the same as a list of Bush 'quotes' I saw before...which suprisingly, looked like the Dan Quayle quotes they used near the end of Fallout 2."
But it's cleared up anyway.
Bush does own stock in a timber company, but the 83 dollars Kerry was refering to was obtained before Bush got the stock (well, something like that), but his point was about large corporations owning small business for tax breaks or something.
I think the tax question was okay. It wasn't "Will you ever raise taxes?" It was just a plan to raise taxes. I think his response was something like, I'll set them at the pre-Bush levels, and anyone who's income bracket is under $200,000 a year will not have their taxes raised." The question was directed at only his first term of presidency (if he is elected), not his whole political term.
Bush didn't seem as on the ball as a president should, he'd shrug off the moderators questions and be too anxious to form a rebuttal against Kerry. It's still fairly close, seeing as how little actual Americans usually pay attention to subtle things like that.
...On a personal note: It's a bad idea to ever have Father/Son relationships in a political office like the Presidency. I saw it as trouble when I saw it 5 years ago.
[Note the Roosevelts were related but not that closely]
<!--QuoteBegin-UltimaGecko+Oct 9 2004, 09:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UltimaGecko @ Oct 9 2004, 09:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But it's cleared up anyway.
Bush does own stock in a timber company, but the 83 dollars Kerry was refering to was obtained before Bush got the stock (well, something like that), but his point was about large corporations owning small business for tax breaks or something. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> To clear things up even further, the 84 dollars in schedule C income was 2 years before the company bought out 50% of a timber company. So no he did not own a timber company.
<a href='http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html' target='_blank'>more info here</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Oct 10 2004, 06:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Oct 10 2004, 06:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-UltimaGecko+Oct 9 2004, 09:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UltimaGecko @ Oct 9 2004, 09:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But it's cleared up anyway.
Bush does own stock in a timber company, but the 83 dollars Kerry was refering to was obtained before Bush got the stock (well, something like that), but his point was about large corporations owning small business for tax breaks or something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> To clear things up even further, the 84 dollars in schedule C income was 2 years before the company bought out 50% of a timber company. So no he did not own a timber company.
<a href='http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html' target='_blank'>more info here</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> To clear things up even further, yes Bush does own a timber company, but the 84 dollars came from an "oil and gas production" business. So what is more fair to say is in 2001, Bush did not qualify as a small business. However, he does now own the timber company and it would be completely legal under the law to report income from it. I understand the concept Kerry was explaining even if FactCheck.org got its facts wrong. 200,000+ income people do stuff like this all the time. Here's the whole thing, and this is the addendum, so this is FactCheck.org's final say on the whole matter:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush's Timber-Growing Company
Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."
In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><b>So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.</b></span>
Kerry got his information from an article we posted Sept. 23 stating that Bush on his 2001 federal income-tax returns "reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from Bush's Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001 income-tax returns as an "oil and gas production" business. The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we should have described the $84 as coming from an "oil and gas" business in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's the point of crying about it? The average voter watched Bush use humor to shut down Kerry's point on that issue. We can argue all we want, but the effect on voters has already been made on this issue. Stop arguing about it, it's pointless.
Personally, I'd love to go back to the 1800's style of debating, completely unmoderated, and the two candidates ripping each other to shreads. Of course, candidates also had this tendancy to hire goons to help "get their vote out."
Outsourcing is a touch call, if you actually think about it. It's easy to understand why companies would leave America, and it's quite sad to think that the American worker has less oppurtunities. But, therein lies the greatest problem: American workers are not assuming their role as investors or business owners. We need more small to medium sized companies out there, and average Joe needs to stop wasting his money and invest! That's how capitalism works, and that's where the oppurtunity really lies. Hell, if they wanted to, they could even invest in the company they work for. Imagine that, helping to increase the value of the company, so that you own a part of it. When the company does well, you do well, which means that the company wants to help its workers out because its workers are investors.
And I'm not talking about fake investments like 401k, I'm talking about people being actively involved in purchasing stock in a corporation. The more workers invest, the more they make, until, at some point, they might be making quite a pretty penny from investments. Maybe companies could even help contribute. Who knows.
If more Americans played the money game correct, Bush would win by a landslide.
So what youre saying is that Republicans are easy swayed by corny humor rather than factual statements? Thats a very careless way to judge our next president.
Yeah, we need more small to medium sized businesses, and the average joe does need to invest. But Bush's plan is making that less and less of a reality. Before presidential campaign even started and these were popular issues, analysts have been saying for quite a while that the divide between the upper and lower class is getting wider and the divide between the middle and the upper class is starting to widen now. The majority of us are getting less chances to share in the american dream. YOU INCLUDED unless you make 200,000+!
And it's very short-sided of you to suggest that the average joe can stop wasting his money and invest anytime they want to. It is very difficult to do this when there is a cultural phenomenon is this country that is focused on keeping low income workers in the dark about properly maintaining their finances. Rich people get richer because finance management is drummed into their heads from the time they are little so they know what to watch out for. I'm a perfect case. I came from a low income family, but my parents were responsible enough to keep me away from bad influences and stuff books in my face. I learned that I didn't want to rent apartments all my life and I wanted a career job, and thats the only reason I am where I am today. I consider myself lucky. Not everybody gets the chance I got. Not everyone makes the realizations I have made. The are plenty of low and middle income areas in America were the answer to financial freedom is murky and unclear which is exactly why there are so many of these areas. Tack onto that the president chipping away from eductation and health care and it makes it much more difficult for average joes to make a decent honest living.
I think Bush is a major mistake for America simply because he is sacrificing the many to benefit the rich few. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans for me because I'm already successful; I started early, I've amassed a bunch of real estate, stocks, and funds and I'm still in my twenties. But my conscience makes me vote for Kerry because its not right to kick the low income, middle income workers, when they are down. Its not right to neglect education and the elderly for the benefit of the war effort when there are many more avenues for funding. And in the end, I think it is these types of decisions that are going to burn us ALL in the future.
All I'm saying is it not as rosy a picture for the average joe as you paint it.
<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Oct 10 2004, 03:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Oct 10 2004, 03:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So what youre saying is that Republicans are easy swayed by corny humor rather than factual statements? Thats a very careless way to judge our next president.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sounds like someone is mad that Kerry is about as funny as a funeral. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 10 2004, 08:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 10 2004, 08:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Oct 10 2004, 03:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Oct 10 2004, 03:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So what youre saying is that Republicans are easy swayed by corny humor rather than factual statements? Thats a very careless way to judge our next president.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sounds like someone is mad that Kerry is about as funny as a funeral. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah well then obviously you didn't read my whole post.
I'd rather have a President that didn't make the rest of the world hate us to death rather than one who can make stupid little jokes, but that's just me.
newsflash: the rest of the world hates us anyway, they just don't show it if we're pandering to their interests. yeah, multilateral cooperation on some things is nice, but it's time for you to wake up and realize that it stays that way only as long as we do things that they want. America is seriously held to a double standard, and i'm tired of people that trick themselves into agreeing with this.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 10 2004, 03:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 10 2004, 03:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Oct 10 2004, 03:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Oct 10 2004, 03:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So what youre saying is that Republicans are easy swayed by corny humor rather than factual statements? Thats a very careless way to judge our next president.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sounds like someone is mad that Kerry is about as funny as a funeral. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Several of us laughed at Kerry's "My opponent's campaign has a word for that" in the first debate, which means that according to the rules of the presidential debate drinking game, we were required to finish the rest of whatever we were drinking, for "actually laughing at one of the candidates' jokes." <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 10 2004, 03:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 10 2004, 03:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Oct 10 2004, 03:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Oct 10 2004, 03:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So what youre saying is that Republicans are easy swayed by corny humor rather than factual statements? Thats a very careless way to judge our next president.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sounds like someone is mad that Kerry is about as funny as a funeral. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bush is a very funny guy. That's what happens when you look ape-like on national tv.
Here's something I found rather amusing: Bush, our president, looking the part ? <a href='http://www.democrats.org/news/200410010006.html' target='_blank'>Right !!</a>
This link is rather insightful also : <a href='http://deoxy.org/cgi/chimp/index.pl' target='_blank'>Yes, Bush is funny</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well I'm not an idiot I know speaking is hardly something Bush is renowned for, but most people know that and except it, someone’s mastery of the English language alone is a poor thing to judge intelligence from. However I found it unusual when Kerry, who is almost always composed when speaking, had an awkward 7-8 second... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree that most people except Bush's tongue-spasmodic blithering. I do agree that you cannot judge someone's intelligence by mastery of the english language alone.
However intelligence and the ability to communicate well are also not mutually exclusive. Bush is hardly some sort of brilliant academic or idiot-savant to explain his lack of verbal skills.
And besides, as I've said in the past - the president must be someone who can communicate well. How can you lead or deal with foreign powers if you can barely form a coherent sentence ?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "umm...bah" stutter when talking about abortion. Those questions clearly annoyed him, as hard as it is to derive any emotion from his botox filled face. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think those questions annoyed him. However, he had to approach the situation with tact and respect. I appreciate the fact that he came out with a well thought-out and satisfying response (that most of the country understood just fine - except our president ! )
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 11 2004, 03:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 11 2004, 03:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What's more frustrating than having to prove your opponent wrong over and over again? I'd say that's warranted. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Probably, judged according to Bush's responses, <i>not</i> being able to prove him wrong over and over again.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 10 2004, 11:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 10 2004, 11:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 11 2004, 03:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 11 2004, 03:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What's more frustrating than having to prove your opponent wrong over and over again? I'd say that's warranted. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Probably, judged according to Bush's responses, <i>not</i> being able to prove him wrong over and over again. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh you are funny, BM. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Your best bet is to find a few objective folks to comment on the debate. Otherwise you'll just get alot of "Man you know Bush/Kerry won because I'm biased as hell towards him already". Personally, I don't feel one way or another towards either of them, because I care very little. I did watch the debate out of curiosity, however, and felt Bush came out on top. He simply appealed to me more over his opponent.
Edit: Granted, though, that first debate I checked out didn't have me liking Bush that much, and it carried over into the second debate for a few minutes.
are you faulting kerry for saying he would do what the majority of the populace wants their leader to do?
what the hell wouldve pleased you? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I am not faulting Kerry for doing what the majority of the populace wants him to do, I am faulting him for changing his beliefs as popular opinion dictates. I want to know what Kerry really stands for and not the cause du jour.
If I elect someone I want them to be the closest representatives of my views while in office. I do not have the option of changing my vote once they are elected and therefore I do not want them changing their core positions while in office.
If you want a candidate that supports the popular opinion at all times rather than relying on their core beliefs then I suggest you vote for President Zogby and VP Gallup. Because there is no reason to actually elect anyone if an opinion poll is all you want.
Wizard makes a valid point. Kerry doesn't exactly have the reputation to be... well consistent. I'm not saying that the views he expresses on TV in front of an audience isn't his own. But I am saying that if those opinions are his own, then at some point or another, he either changed them, or lied about them before, because he has said some things contradictory to the things he voted and said in the senate.
Everybody's a hypocrite. Heck, I'm a hypocrite even. However, I would very much not like to see this behavior represented in a president. The president has made decisions that aren't popular to the public. Reminds us that HE is still making decisions, not some opinion poll.
You have to admit, democrats, that it is a little strange that Kerry goes from having the reputation of very left-winged to middle left right around candidate nominations. I'm sorry, but even if I liked the opinions Kerry had, I still wouldn't be able to vote for him because I can't shake this idea that the opinions coming out of his mouth are not his own.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 11 2004, 02:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 11 2004, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You have to admit, democrats, that it is a little strange that Kerry goes from having the reputation of very left-winged to middle left right around candidate nominations. I'm sorry, but even if I liked the opinions Kerry had, I still wouldn't be able to vote for him because I can't shake this idea that the opinions coming out of his mouth are not his own. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, but this unease you have, based on this perception-- that Kerry was one of the most liberal senators playing centrist, that he flip-flops, etc-- was that completely due to some sort of honest cognitive dissonance between what you knew about him and his record prior to the primaries and what you're now seeing?
Or, could part of it just be an acceptance of conventional wisdom? The big battle in politics is to define your opponent in terms suitable for an unflattering, easily digested caricature.
The Right is exceedingly good at doing this--this isn't an insult; it's politics, and <i>everyone</i> does it to a certain degree, but let's face it-- the Right currently has access to Karl Rove, the Michael Jordan of character assasination. They're better at it, though at times it seems to be because the left gives them the unintentional assist.
<a href='http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml' target='_blank'>Click on 'Conventional Wisdom'</a>.
Excerpts (John Stewart, speaking to camera): <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"It’s not easy keeping up with current events. As soon as you catch up, more happens. That’s where conventional wisdom fits in. Conventional wisdom is the agreed upon understanding of an event or person. John Kerry is a flip flopper. George Bush has sincere heartland values and is stupid. What matters is not that the designation be true just that it be agreed upon by the media so that no further thought has to be put into it. So how is conventional wisdom arrived at? For instance, let’s take the example of the addition of John Edwards to the Democratic ticket. I don’t know how to feel about that. I don’t know what it means. Here’s how I will." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ..... <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Talking points. That’s how we learn things. But how will I absorb a talking point like ‘Edwards and Kerry are out of the mainstream’ unless I get it jack hammered into my skull? That’s where television lends a hand." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a great list out there of instances where Bush has reversed his opinions, yet why isn't he described as a flip-flopper? Because . . . uh . . . John Kerry is the flip-flopper. The talking heads have made than abundantly clear, and we adhere to their narrative.
**** Cheney sought to cut many of the weapons programs that he criticizes Kerry for voting against when he was Secretary of Defense under Bush 41-- but why is it Kerry who hates the military, and won't protect the country? Again, that's how the situation is defined, so we take reality, jam it square-peg-round-hole-style through this filter, and suddenly, we're the proud owners of an almost subconscious bias.
Comments
obviously kerry is playing both sides of the issue here. he wants to dodge the question because he doesn't want to get in trouble with his conservative supporters (the ones that are too disillusioned with Bush to vote for him) and seem like an extreme liberal by flat-out refusing to pledge to not raising taxes, but he clearly wants to leave the door open to future tax increases, because i'm sure that's one of the things he'll be first to address if he's elected (getting rid of Bush's "OMG 1%" tax cuts). there's a career politician for you.
Whether or not that's a healthy thing for government, is a matter for another discussion. But suffice it to say, I think most career politicians are a plague on our country.
*edit* basically the whole of mainstream politics is to appear as moderate as possible before the election, appeal to the broadest groups of people, and once elected, screw over your constituents as much as possible. except where you don't have term limits. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What a nice long post. Too bad it was entirely irrelevant.
Asking if he won't raise taxes is a rediculously open-ended question. Kerry needs to raise taxes on imports to discourage outsourcing. I'd say he needs to raise taxes on the upper crust just to undo what Bush did. Hell, something might come up and require an emergency tax levy.
It's a stupidly stupid question that anyone with brains can realize is stupid to answer. Either Kerry says 'I won't raise taxes' and looks like an **** when he has to do something to ANY tax bracket, or he says 'I will raise taxes' and looks like an ****, even if he wasn't talking about the middle class American.
That question was only up to bait Kerry.
gimme a break.
That isn't pledging. For a pledge, you start off by saying "I pledge to..." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know what's stupider - the pledge posed to Kerry, or your response to it.
Seriously, that's like asking him to make a pledge not to make any new laws. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why didnt he just say no?
Why did he have to say yes, then talk about his retarted plan?
are you faulting kerry for saying he would do what the majority of the populace wants their leader to do?
what the hell wouldve pleased you?
That isn't pledging. For a pledge, you start off by saying "I pledge to..." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know what's stupider - the pledge posed to Kerry, or your response to it.
Seriously, that's like asking him to make a pledge not to make any new laws. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh I guess it was just me being stupid. I mean, what business does a guy like me, an american citizen, have for assuring our future leader carries out his promises to me?
Maybe it was a hook and bait, but it was a legitimate question to ask Kerry. If he can carry such a thing out, he should pledge on it. If he cannot, he should say no. Simple as that. The guy wasn't asking anything more than the truth. If a politician cannot deliver that, I won't vote on him.
EEK, maybe you are saying I'm stupid because you like Kerry so much that you won't see beyond the simple facts. Kerry didn't pledge. He was being 100% politician by not lying, yet not pledging at the same time. To be perfectly honest, most of what Kerry says lies within the realm of popular majority. It's inconsistent with a lot of what he voted on in the senate, but hey.. when you're running for president, a lot of what you say or believe makes radical changes, right?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html' target='_blank'>FactCheck.org</a>
John F. Kerry speaks:
[Stuff]
I'd have to say that Kerry ruined whatever reputation he had for being smarter than Bush. Both bush and kerry are very nervous during the debates, so I can hardly blame them. Both are susceptable to mistakes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Someone's ignorant, but it ain't Kerry . . .
<a href='http://www.snopes.com/quotes/candidate.asp' target='_blank'>pwned.</a>
Oh, and FYI, The first quote is similar to something <i>Bush</i> said.
Sayeth he:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->More and more of our imports come from overseas<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, I was going to say, "Those look exactly the same as a list of Bush 'quotes' I saw before...which suprisingly, looked like the Dan Quayle quotes they used near the end of Fallout 2."
But it's cleared up anyway.
Bush does own stock in a timber company, but the 83 dollars Kerry was refering to was obtained before Bush got the stock (well, something like that), but his point was about large corporations owning small business for tax breaks or something.
I think the tax question was okay. It wasn't "Will you ever raise taxes?" It was just a plan to raise taxes. I think his response was something like, I'll set them at the pre-Bush levels, and anyone who's income bracket is under $200,000 a year will not have their taxes raised." The question was directed at only his first term of presidency (if he is elected), not his whole political term.
Bush didn't seem as on the ball as a president should, he'd shrug off the moderators questions and be too anxious to form a rebuttal against Kerry. It's still fairly close, seeing as how little actual Americans usually pay attention to subtle things like that.
...On a personal note: It's a bad idea to ever have Father/Son relationships in a political office like the Presidency. I saw it as trouble when I saw it 5 years ago.
[Note the Roosevelts were related but not that closely]
Bush does own stock in a timber company, but the 83 dollars Kerry was refering to was obtained before Bush got the stock (well, something like that), but his point was about large corporations owning small business for tax breaks or something. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
To clear things up even further, the 84 dollars in schedule C income was 2 years before the company bought out 50% of a timber company. So no he did not own a timber company.
<a href='http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html' target='_blank'>more info here</a>
Bush does own stock in a timber company, but the 83 dollars Kerry was refering to was obtained before Bush got the stock (well, something like that), but his point was about large corporations owning small business for tax breaks or something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To clear things up even further, the 84 dollars in schedule C income was 2 years before the company bought out 50% of a timber company. So no he did not own a timber company.
<a href='http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html' target='_blank'>more info here</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To clear things up even further, yes Bush does own a timber company, but the 84 dollars came from an "oil and gas production" business. So what is more fair to say is in 2001, Bush did not qualify as a small business. However, he does now own the timber company and it would be completely legal under the law to report income from it. I understand the concept Kerry was explaining even if FactCheck.org got its facts wrong. 200,000+ income people do stuff like this all the time. Here's the whole thing, and this is the addendum, so this is FactCheck.org's final say on the whole matter:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush's Timber-Growing Company
Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."
In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><b>So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.</b></span>
Kerry got his information from an article we posted Sept. 23 stating that Bush on his 2001 federal income-tax returns "reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from Bush's Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001 income-tax returns as an "oil and gas production" business. The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we should have described the $84 as coming from an "oil and gas" business in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, I'd love to go back to the 1800's style of debating, completely unmoderated, and the two candidates ripping each other to shreads. Of course, candidates also had this tendancy to hire goons to help "get their vote out."
Outsourcing is a touch call, if you actually think about it. It's easy to understand why companies would leave America, and it's quite sad to think that the American worker has less oppurtunities. But, therein lies the greatest problem: American workers are not assuming their role as investors or business owners. We need more small to medium sized companies out there, and average Joe needs to stop wasting his money and invest! That's how capitalism works, and that's where the oppurtunity really lies. Hell, if they wanted to, they could even invest in the company they work for. Imagine that, helping to increase the value of the company, so that you own a part of it. When the company does well, you do well, which means that the company wants to help its workers out because its workers are investors.
And I'm not talking about fake investments like 401k, I'm talking about people being actively involved in purchasing stock in a corporation. The more workers invest, the more they make, until, at some point, they might be making quite a pretty penny from investments. Maybe companies could even help contribute. Who knows.
If more Americans played the money game correct, Bush would win by a landslide.
Yeah, we need more small to medium sized businesses, and the average joe does need to invest. But Bush's plan is making that less and less of a reality. Before presidential campaign even started and these were popular issues, analysts have been saying for quite a while that the divide between the upper and lower class is getting wider and the divide between the middle and the upper class is starting to widen now. The majority of us are getting less chances to share in the american dream. YOU INCLUDED unless you make 200,000+!
And it's very short-sided of you to suggest that the average joe can stop wasting his money and invest anytime they want to. It is very difficult to do this when there is a cultural phenomenon is this country that is focused on keeping low income workers in the dark about properly maintaining their finances. Rich people get richer because finance management is drummed into their heads from the time they are little so they know what to watch out for. I'm a perfect case. I came from a low income family, but my parents were responsible enough to keep me away from bad influences and stuff books in my face. I learned that I didn't want to rent apartments all my life and I wanted a career job, and thats the only reason I am where I am today. I consider myself lucky. Not everybody gets the chance I got. Not everyone makes the realizations I have made. The are plenty of low and middle income areas in America were the answer to financial freedom is murky and unclear which is exactly why there are so many of these areas. Tack onto that the president chipping away from eductation and health care and it makes it much more difficult for average joes to make a decent honest living.
I think Bush is a major mistake for America simply because he is sacrificing the many to benefit the rich few. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans for me because I'm already successful; I started early, I've amassed a bunch of real estate, stocks, and funds and I'm still in my twenties. But my conscience makes me vote for Kerry because its not right to kick the low income, middle income workers, when they are down. Its not right to neglect education and the elderly for the benefit of the war effort when there are many more avenues for funding. And in the end, I think it is these types of decisions that are going to burn us ALL in the future.
All I'm saying is it not as rosy a picture for the average joe as you paint it.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds like someone is mad that Kerry is about as funny as a funeral. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds like someone is mad that Kerry is about as funny as a funeral. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah well then obviously you didn't read my whole post.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds like someone is mad that Kerry is about as funny as a funeral. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Several of us laughed at Kerry's "My opponent's campaign has a word for that" in the first debate, which means that according to the rules of the presidential debate drinking game, we were required to finish the rest of whatever we were drinking, for "actually laughing at one of the candidates' jokes." <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Uhhh, bull ****.
My family was the biggest US fanboy/girls before the Iraqi War.
Uhhh, bull ****.
My family was the biggest US fanboy/girls before the Iraqi War.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds like someone is mad that Kerry is about as funny as a funeral. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush is a very funny guy. That's what happens when you look ape-like on national tv.
Here's something I found rather amusing:
Bush, our president, looking the part ? <a href='http://www.democrats.org/news/200410010006.html' target='_blank'>Right !!</a>
This link is rather insightful also : <a href='http://deoxy.org/cgi/chimp/index.pl' target='_blank'>Yes, Bush is funny</a>
Well I'm not an idiot I know speaking is hardly something Bush is renowned for, but most people know that and except it, someone’s mastery of the English language alone is a poor thing to judge intelligence from. However I found it unusual when Kerry, who is almost always composed when speaking, had an awkward 7-8 second...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree that most people except Bush's tongue-spasmodic blithering. I do agree that you cannot judge someone's intelligence by mastery of the english language alone.
However intelligence and the ability to communicate well are also not mutually exclusive. Bush is hardly some sort of brilliant academic or idiot-savant to explain his lack of verbal skills.
And besides, as I've said in the past - the president must be someone who can communicate well. How can you lead or deal with foreign powers if you can barely form a coherent sentence ?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"umm...bah" stutter when talking about abortion. Those questions clearly annoyed him, as hard as it is to derive any emotion from his botox filled face.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think those questions annoyed him. However, he had to approach the situation with tact and respect. I appreciate the fact that he came out with a well thought-out and satisfying response (that most of the country understood just fine - except our president ! )
..
..
Probably, judged according to Bush's responses, <i>not</i> being able to prove him wrong over and over again.
Probably, judged according to Bush's responses, <i>not</i> being able to prove him wrong over and over again. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh you are funny, BM. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Edit: Granted, though, that first debate I checked out didn't have me liking Bush that much, and it carried over into the second debate for a few minutes.
are you faulting kerry for saying he would do what the majority of the populace wants their leader to do?
what the hell wouldve pleased you? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not faulting Kerry for doing what the majority of the populace wants him to do, I am faulting him for changing his beliefs as popular opinion dictates. I want to know what Kerry really stands for and not the cause du jour.
If I elect someone I want them to be the closest representatives of my views while in office. I do not have the option of changing my vote once they are elected and therefore I do not want them changing their core positions while in office.
If you want a candidate that supports the popular opinion at all times rather than relying on their core beliefs then I suggest you vote for President Zogby and VP Gallup. Because there is no reason to actually elect anyone if an opinion poll is all you want.
Everybody's a hypocrite. Heck, I'm a hypocrite even. However, I would very much not like to see this behavior represented in a president. The president has made decisions that aren't popular to the public. Reminds us that HE is still making decisions, not some opinion poll.
You have to admit, democrats, that it is a little strange that Kerry goes from having the reputation of very left-winged to middle left right around candidate nominations. I'm sorry, but even if I liked the opinions Kerry had, I still wouldn't be able to vote for him because I can't shake this idea that the opinions coming out of his mouth are not his own.
Right, but this unease you have, based on this perception-- that Kerry was one of the most liberal senators playing centrist, that he flip-flops, etc-- was that completely due to some sort of honest cognitive dissonance between what you knew about him and his record prior to the primaries and what you're now seeing?
Or, could part of it just be an acceptance of conventional wisdom? The big battle in politics is to define your opponent in terms suitable for an unflattering, easily digested caricature.
The Right is exceedingly good at doing this--this isn't an insult; it's politics, and <i>everyone</i> does it to a certain degree, but let's face it-- the Right currently has access to Karl Rove, the Michael Jordan of character assasination. They're better at it, though at times it seems to be because the left gives them the unintentional assist.
<a href='http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml' target='_blank'>Click on 'Conventional Wisdom'</a>.
Excerpts (John Stewart, speaking to camera):
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"It’s not easy keeping up with current events. As soon as you catch up, more happens. That’s where conventional wisdom fits in. Conventional wisdom is the agreed upon understanding of an event or person. John Kerry is a flip flopper. George Bush has sincere heartland values and is stupid. What matters is not that the designation be true just that it be agreed upon by the media so that no further thought has to be put into it. So how is conventional wisdom arrived at? For instance, let’s take the example of the addition of John Edwards to the Democratic ticket. I don’t know how to feel about that. I don’t know what it means. Here’s how I will." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
.....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Talking points. That’s how we learn things. But how will I absorb a talking point like ‘Edwards and Kerry are out of the mainstream’ unless I get it jack hammered into my skull? That’s where television lends a hand." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a great list out there of instances where Bush has reversed his opinions, yet why isn't he described as a flip-flopper? Because . . . uh . . . John Kerry is the flip-flopper. The talking heads have made than abundantly clear, and we adhere to their narrative.
**** Cheney sought to cut many of the weapons programs that he criticizes Kerry for voting against when he was Secretary of Defense under Bush 41-- but why is it Kerry who hates the military, and won't protect the country? Again, that's how the situation is defined, so we take reality, jam it square-peg-round-hole-style through this filter, and suddenly, we're the proud owners of an almost subconscious bias.
I truly think this is part of the issue.