Debate 2, dissembling boogaloo.

[Houngan]

Kerry is blowing it. He's not answering questions, he's harping too much on Iraq. Bush is absolutely quivering in fear, and now is the time for Kerry to state, plainly and calmly, what his policies are, and let Bush look like a fanatic. He needs to pull the fangs in, and put the brain out.

H.

[XtienMurawski]

Well, I think Bush just running all over the moderator pretty much handles the "fanatic" question.

-Amanpour

[Damien Falgoust]

We've been dissecting things (read: making fun of the questioners) in real time in the IRC channel, if anyone wants to stop in.

[TrodKnee]

They're both presenting the same rhetoric with the same soundbytes as the last debate with little new stuff...only this time with more fervor. I can't see this one going better for Bush unless there is some change of tact.

[BrewersDroop]

Bush is losing cool, cutting in, interrupting the moderator, glaring at Kerry and smirking when Kerry says something he disagrees with. He's coming across as petulant whenever anyone hints at criticism of the way he's been running things, as if people just don't 'get it'. Kerry's keeping his cool, answering the questions, rebutting Bush's attacks, presenting his own alternatives and throwing Bush off his game. At this point, Kerry's doing a better job. All IMHO of course.

[Angie Gallant]

Bush is losing control. He's shouting, unable to control his expressions, and the way he just ran all over Gibson was completely insane. What the hell is going on here? Is he back on the cocaine?

[XtienMurawski]

Yeah, but he's getting laughs.

Uh-oh.

-Amanpour

[XtienMurawski]

Man that guy in the front row is huge.

-Amanpour

[Midnight Son]

Finally, the real face of Dubya is coming into public view. What a petulant jerk.

[Midnight Son]

"We have a deficit because the country went into a recession. And we have a war." Forgot those taxcuts, eh?

[Euri]

Remember kids, you run up a deficit by having a recession. SPENDING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

[XtienMurawski]

Um...I think Bush just referred to Kerry as "Senator Kennedy"...er...uh...doh!

Of course he also referred to the draft being talked about "on the Internets [sic]"...so maybe it's just me.

-Amanpour

[TrodKnee]

Kerry just got a laugh. It's pathetic how important that can be.

[nutsak]

Kerry just got a laugh. It's pathetic how important that can be.

Then Bush tried a joke straight after - he got nothing.

[Midnight Son]

Bush on the environment: "I'm a good stewart of the land." LOL!

Kerry: "This is one of the worst admins in history. We're going backwards. Backwards on clean water, etc I'm going to be a president that believes in science."

[Midnight Son]

"Need some wood?" Let's research this!

[Euri]

"Need some wood?" Let's research this!

I totally missed the moment. What was the joke?

[Euri]

As Angie just said, Kerry has just stated that he respects agnostics and atheists in a public place, as part of a campaign. I think I'm going to cry.

[Angie Gallant]

That has seriously moved me. I am beyond proud right now.

[Midnight Son]

"Need some wood?" Let's research this!

I totally missed the moment. What was the joke?

Kerry was talking about how Bush and Cheney have little corporations set up to save on taxes. He said Bush had a little timber company. Bush played stupid.

[Jason McCullough]

Kerry fumbled around at points, but Bush came off as an arrogant yahoo - shouty, eye rolling, jumpy, *didn't have a damned answer for anything he'd done wrong*.

I'd say Kerry, but not as much of a lead as the last one.

[Euri]

He didn't answer the last question. Not nearly. Not even close. Totally went off onto a WAR IS RIGHT WE LIKES WAR tirade.

[extarbags]

I missed the first one, but man... Bush was just terrible. Arguing with the moderator? Calling Kerry "Kennedy?" Completely ignoring everything Kerry said about the PBAB? Oh, and standing up in the middle of Kerry's turn half the time.

Also, someone quick check the status of Bush's timber company. I hope my gut is right that he owns one and doesn't know.

[Brian Rucker]

"Need some wood?" Let's research this!

I totally missed the moment. What was the joke?

Kerry was talking about how Bush and Cheney have little corporations set up to save on taxes. He said Bush had a little timber company. Bush played stupid.

"Wood" is Pauli Shore slang for an erection. I was laughing my ass off when he said that.

I don't think Bush came off that badly, really. If I cared what I was talking about I'd be a bit passionate too. It was close to a tie IMHO. Nobody landed any knockouts. But I tend to give Kerry the edge because I thought he showed more cool and a better grasp of the issues.

And as always, I'll wait and see how the truthsquadding sorts out.

[BrewersDroop]

I had real doubts about Kerry prior to this series of debates. Now, I can definitely see him as president, and a damn effective one at that. As a Canadian living in the US, I can't vote but if I could, it would be for Kerry.

[XtienMurawski]

The last two questions were really designed to be hit out of the park by the candidate giving the rebuttal. How weird.

-Amanpour

[Jamie Madigan]

Man, that "Need some wood?" comment had me in belly laughs.

I also enjoyed how Bush was caught TOTALLY off guard about the question of who he would appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court if he had the chance right now. "I ain't sayin'!"

[extarbags]

I felt reassured that Bush will not appoint a supreme court justice who favors slavery.

[extarbags]

And how he couldn't bring himself to name one mistake he made, let alone three.

[BrewersDroop]

Also, someone quick check the status of Bush's timber company. I hope my gut is right that he owns one and doesn't know.

From the DNC site (http://www.democrats.org/blog/comment/00011067.html)

"Clare Gannon: President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.) [FactCheck.org]"

However, factcheck.org search is disabled right now, so I can't confirm the citation.

Edit: Found the cite on factcheck.org. Here's the direct link (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265.html), which reiterates the above.

[Euri]

But at least we won't see slavery again! Woohoo!

[Angie Gallant]

The facts about Bush's timber company re: his tax filings. (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265.html)

[RightWrong]

Didn't anybody else find the Dred Scott remark *terribly* anachronistic? I see that one being punished dearly on the Daily Show, at least.

I couldn't stand how they both ignored Gibson's direct question however, my intelligence was insulted.

[Euri]

The facts about Bush's timber company re: his tax filings. (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265.html)

Oops

[triggercut]

from factcheck.org:

President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)

[Jason McCullough]

I'm depressed that National Review caught on to people reading their blog to spy on conservatives honest opinions; it was so fun. They were practically suicidal the last two debates.

[Jamie Madigan]

We've been dissecting things (read: making fun of the questioners) in real time in the IRC channel, if anyone wants to stop in.
What IRC channel is that?

[extarbags]

I also liked this moment:

Bush: I've opened 22 stem cell lines for research. This is a good compromise between science and ethics.

Kerry: Every scientist in America says those lines are insufficient.

Bush: Those lines were already extracted from embryos! I decided not to destroy more life!

[Anders Hallin]

Bush: "I will not appoint a Supreme Court Justice who will remove 'under God' from the Pledge, nor will I appoint one who supports slavery"
That's just crystal clear.

I think my favourite moment was (on Kerry's supposed 98 votes for tax raising) "these aren't just made up numbers".

[John Many Jars]

Either Bush was been prepped very poorly for this debate or he forgot all the coaching immediately. He was in a yelping tantrum from his very first answer. We even saw a return to the "L-word" tactic of 1992: "That's what liberals do! They create government-sponsored health care!" And we got the "optimism" argument again: how can Kerry lead when he's not optimistic about Bush's success in Iraq?

Kerry was firm, cogent, and very forceful without getting mad. In this round even more than the first, I found myself thinking about Al Gore from time to time --- specifically of what a stiff he was compared with Kerry, and of how he could possibly have failed to trounce someone who talks about rumors "on the Internets" and says Canadian drugs "might be from a Third World."

Anyway...What's this Bush was claiming about 75% of Al Qaeda's members being captured? I hadn't heard that one before. (Obviously there's no shortage of non--Al Qaeda jihadis now, but where does the specific claim come from?)

[Brian Rucker]

I think that's a real number based off the known Al Qaida leadership at large previous to 9/11. It excludes the tens of thousands of lower level Al Qaida operatives out there, unaffiliated but sympathetic groups, and fails to take into account the replacement of leadership which most serious study groups believe is an ongoing, and even expanding, process as they reform.

[Myth]

Nothing was better than when on a few occasion sthe questioner gave the "What the Fuck" look to Bush when answering their question. Especially the one about the environment.


Also if you looked at the faces in general in the background when Bush was speaking, the looked appalled half the time.

[BrewersDroop]

Even the Bush spin crowd in the post-debate spin room seem pretty subdued.

[Zarathustra]

Finally, the real face of Dubya is coming into public view. What a petulant jerk.

Hmm... your comment means he's doing better in this debate.

[Papageno]

Hehe, I see the best Prince George could do on the health care costs question was to trot out the old "trial lawyer" bogeyman. Talk about out of touch.

Kerry held his own tonight, and while Bush was better prepared (how could he not be after the fiasco of last Thursday?), Kerry didn't give him an inch on Iraq, health care, the jobless recovery etc.

This incumbent is goin' down. :D

[noun]

I don't know if Bush is on medication or is suffering from a brain disorder, but he's not coming off even REMOTELY coherent. Seriously, WTF? If Clinton spoke like this during the debates with Dole, I would've gladly voted for the robot over the space case.

[Brian Rucker]

I don't know where you've been, noun, but Bush was always incoherent. Tonight was actually one of his better nights. And yet, somehow, he's still got adherents and supporters. Zarathustra bemoaned the state of education in another thread. Here's more proof.

[Aleck]

Wasn't the Dred Scott decision a pretty good decision of strict constructionism? If so, wouldn't Bush be for it? I'm not a lawyer, but that point (along with many others) didn't quite sit right with me.

I did find it amusing when the girl with the "abortion is murder" question almost burst into tears while asking her question. Sheesh. As though we didn't already know the answer to that question?

[Woolen Horde]

Slavery??? What the FUCK kind of answer is that? It's like what an unprepared student says when he's forced to stand in front of class and say something.

Does the President of the United States really think that appointing judges who believe in slavery is an issue today????? Does this man not even pay attention to the basic headlines?????

Hell, I'm just a regular citizen, but I realize that there are huge issues that are headed to the courts, like issues of privacy, free speech, civil liberty.

How the hell can anyone treat Bush as a serious candidate at this point?

[Andrew Mayer]

DID YOU KNOW THAT THE LOUDER YOU YELL THE RIGHTER YOU ARE?!?!

AND IF THAT DOESN'T WORK FEEL FREE TO CUT OFF THE MODERATOR SO YOU CAN YELL SOME MORE.

If you want to know the exact moment that Bush lost the election, it's right here:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/stuff/bushflipsout.wmv

[VegasRobb]

Should be another week of conservative talk show hosts saying Bush fought Kerry to a draw.

[ChrisGrenard]

Should be another week of conservative talk show hosts saying Bush fought Kerry to a draw.

Hah, my roomate (total conservative, considers himself "moderate") thinks that Kerry did an awful job debating and said that Bush "owned" him.

Ahh, that's just exhausting for me.

Anyway, nice to meet you guys! Another GG exile here. Noun can vouch for me that I'm not a *bad* person at least. ;)

Oh, and Tom is really nice. Cool guy!

[Toddy]

Would someone please tell me why the US media is reporting that this debate was more of a draw than the one last week? I don't know how anyone sane could say that Bush was even remotely close to Kerry tonight. Kerry demolished Bush on every single question. Absolutely demolished him. And then Bush killed himself with more stupid non-answers and all that yelling. He was completely losing his cool, and was practically ranting on numerous occasions.

Bush was an utter buffoon tonight, and Kerry looked absolutely solid. That speech to the camera about no tax increases, the "you're 0 for 2, Mr. President" line. Kerry was really on his game tonight. I was really, really impressed by the guy. This is not the same man who sat back and took the slander of the Swifties.

I just don't understand how this race is even close.

[Anaxagoras]

I just don't understand how this race is even close.

Because this country is chock full of people like Zarathustra.

BTW.... does anyone know where I could find a recording of the entire debate? I'm sure that when the Daily Show covers it, I'll be able to see the highlights, but I'd like to see the whole thing without editing.

[markv]

I don't know if Bush is on medication or is suffering from a brain disorder, but he's not coming off even REMOTELY coherent. Seriously, WTF? If Clinton spoke like this during the debates with Dole, I would've gladly voted for the robot over the space case.

He is on the evil Canadian poisoned medication! We shall conquer you Americans with our cheap dirty drugs.

[Anders Hallin]

http://www.c-span.org/

It's a bit strange, despite Bush going a bit batshit crazy, it felt a bit like a draw. Probably because he looked more comfortable while going batshit.

[bago]

W having a brain fart after the word "Intelligence" was priceless.

Kerrey offered answers, while W gave platitudes. It's hard to see this as anythign but a Kerry win.

[Duality]

What IRC channel is that?
#qt3 on irc.enterthegame.com

Of course, ITS TOO LATE FOR YOU!

[Ben Sones]

Hah, my roomate (total conservative, considers himself "moderate") thinks that Kerry did an awful job debating and said that Bush "owned" him.

Speaking of "owned," I loved Kerry's response to Bush's sneering comment that "my opponent thinks that inspections could have gotten the job done, and we know that's just not true" (paraphrased). I mean, I guess that one is kind of a gimme, but it was still nice to see Kerry go for the throat.

Both of them were pretty freewheeling with the facts, though I think Bush was the worst of the two on this count. Factcheck.org has a good breakdown.

And he mentioned Poland again, as one of our stalwart allies in Iraq, which is sort of funny now that they have announced that they are leaving. Kerry's comment that if the troops from the state of Missouri were considered a nation, then they would be the third largest ally in Iraq (after the US and Britain) was funny.

[Brandon Clements]

First off, I want to apologize to Damien and Anders for not holding up my end of the Great IRC Debate chat (neighbor came over). I'm calling this a draw: Bush looked better than in the last one (though, as Damien said, he "looked as if he would pounce on small prey at any instant"), and Kerry didn't hit anything he was thrown out of the park. Nobody's going to be convinced to vote for either of them based on this performance.

However, if I hear Bush say one more goddamn thing about a Subchapter S Corp. then I'm going to take my own full page add out just to say what the hell it is.

[Derek Meister]

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.

[Jamie Madigan]

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.

[Derek Meister]

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.

[SolomonGrundy]

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.

[Andrew Mayer]

The CW is showing a pretty clear Kerry victory today, if not a large victory.

But the Gallup poll internals (http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13549) 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.

[BrewersDroop]

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".

[Jamie Madigan]

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.

[ChrisGrenard]

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!

[Sidd_Budd]

...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 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.

[Jonathan Blow]

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.

[Bub, Andrew]

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.

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.

[Zarathustra]

I just don't understand how this race is even close.

Because this country is chock full of people like Zarathustra.




Yeah and don't you forget it.

[Anaxagoras]

I just don't understand how this race is even close.

Because this country is chock full of people like Zarathustra.




Yeah and don't you forget it.

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.

[Zarathustra]

Well, when you can muster some certitude you let me know what you want to replace American democracy with.

[noun]

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

[Jamie Madigan]

But I am curious about why you think it's pathetic.
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.

[Ben Sones]

Prepositions are terrible for ending sentences on.

[Bub, Andrew]

The rule against ending a preposition is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put! -- Winston Churchill

[Bub, Andrew]

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.

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.

[Andrew Mayer]

Well, when you can muster some certitude you let me know what you want to replace American democracy with.

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...

[Zarathustra]

Read again, I am quoting Anaxa

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.


And seriously, I'm interested in his answer.

And while you're at it, why not explain why having a country "chock full of people like Zarathustra" is a bad thing? I pay my taxes, I work, I don't use illegal drugs, I take care of my family. I put myself through college, I pay my bills on time, I donate quite a bit to several charities and causes. What's the problem here, just that I am different than you? I thought liberals were all for diversity?

I guess someone decided it would be clever to imply that people like me are a drag on society. How insightful!

[Anaxagoras]

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.
And seriously, I'm interested in his answer.
What answer? You said that when I can "muster some certitude", let you know what I want to replace the democracy with. I haven't mustered any certitude. I've been giving the question quite a bit of thought ever since I felt there was something seriously wrong with the American political system during the early 90's, and I still haven't come up with a satisfactory answer. Not even a "theoretical" answer that's satisfactory. I can identify cultural traits that lead to what I consider to be an unhealthy democracy, but even then, I don't know how to eliminate cultural traits without resorting to something truly draconian.... and draconian measures themselves often introduce undesirable cultural traits.

So... in short... I don't know what the solution would be. I have a feeling that the answer lies not in destroying (or discarding) the American political system, but rather reforming the culture within which it exists. And yes, I'm aware that there are many, many sub-cultures within the mainstream "American culture".... which only complicates the issue. Ugh. It kinda makes my head hurt, but it is an interesting problem to consider.

And while you're at it, why not explain why having a country "chock full of people like Zarathustra" is a bad thing?
Alright... this one is quite a bit simpler, and I can muster quite a bit of certitude about this.

I pay my taxes, I work
Bravo... welcome to life in a first world nation. Well done, sir.

I don't use illegal drugs,
This isn't something to take pride in. It's just a thing... neither good nor bad.

I take care of my family.
In the words of Chris Rock, "You're supposed to take care your family! You don't take credit for shit you're supposed to do!"

I put myself through college, I pay my bills on time,
What the hell? These aren't virtues even by the standards of the backwater that you come from. Our economic system strongly encourages these actions. If you didn't do these things, you'd be rather foolish. Either that, or you would be unable to do them due to economic realities. Either way.... doing them (or not) isn't somehow virtuous.

I donate quite a bit to several charities and causes.
Finally! Something that might actually be considered a virtue. Except that I gather that you consistently vote against progressive legislation that would guarantee a basic social safety net to the underclass, thus your votes necessite that these "charities and causes" need to exist in the first place. The whole thing is kind of a wash in my book.

What's the problem here, just that I am different than you?
Nope, the problem is that you and most people like you don't ever think, and thus are easily fooled by smirking fools who talk about making America safer while every action they take has the exact opposite effect. If we lived in a dictatorship, having a nation chock full of Zarathustras wouldn't matter so much, but we live in a republic where your unthinking vote sways the course of this nation as much as a well thought out vote does.

BTW... I don't consider all viewpoints opposed to mine to be "unthinking"... not by any means. However, supporting Bush at this point, after we've clearly seen his lack of understanding, his repeated foreign and domestic botches, his complete disregard for telling the truth to the American people, and his inability to say "I was wrong when I did ____" is unconsciable. I can understand a vote for a third party candidate if you trust neither Kerry nor Bush, I might even be able to understand a vote for Bush if it was cast with great reservations. But you (and most Bush supporters I've read about, spoke with, or otherwise had contact with) appear to be enthusiastic about a man who has disgraced the oval office, and disgraced this country. But of course, it's not a disgrace if you never have to say "I'm sorry", eh?

[Andrew Mayer]

And while you're at it, why not explain why having a country "chock full of people like Zarathustra" is a bad thing? I pay my taxes, I work, I don't use illegal drugs, I take care of my family. I put myself through college, I pay my bills on time, I donate quite a bit to several charities and causes. What's the problem here, just that I am different than you? I thought liberals were all for diversity?

At this point I think that I'd enjoy having a beer with you. I'd still tease you, but I'd buy the beer.

[Zarathustra]

Thanks, Andrew. I'm sure there is more common ground than the activity of these forums suggests.

Anaxagoras, you seemed to be searching my little list for "virtues". I didn't say "I have these virtues", I listed attributes. And maybe we disagree but the word illegal in "illegal drugs" suggests noncompliance with the law. "This isn't something to take pride in. It's just a thing... neither good nor bad." Hah, yeah, right. That tells me all I need to know.

"These aren't virtues even by the standards of the backwater that you come from." Houston is a backwater? That's unnecessarily insulting, don't you think? Even if I did come from a backwater, what are you trying to say?

[Anaxagoras]

Anaxagoras, you seemed to be searching my little list for "virtues". I didn't say "I have these virtues", I listed attributes.Uh-huh. So those attributes were not supposed to be viewed in any way as positive. Discussion according to Zarathustra: throw out random tangents for the sheer fun of it?


And maybe we disagree but the word illegal in "illegal drugs" suggests noncompliance with the law.
Yes... and? I assume you're going somewhere with this?


"These aren't virtues even by the standards of the backwater that you come from." Houston is a backwater? That's unnecessarily insulting, don't you think? Even if I did come from a backwater, what are you trying to say?Actually, yes, Houston is a backwater by my standards. But at the same time, you're right.... that's unnecessarily insulting. It doesn't further what I was trying to say. So I apologize for using for the term.

[Uncle Larry]

Actually, yes, Houston is a backwater by my standards.

Your standards might be ridiculous.

Incidentally, anyone see the Astros fuck the Braves up? They oughtta just change the NL East division title to "consolation prize."

[Zarathustra]

Actually, yes, Houston is a backwater by my standards.

And your standard is... Seattle?

In case you weren't aware, Houston is the third largest city in the US.

Texas is the only state with three cities in the top ten, population-wise.

[Ben]

Zara- Don't try to have a conversation with Anax about the south, he's pretty sure the US would be a socialist paradise if not for all those retards on the wrong side of the Mason-Dixon line. This makes him really angry, for he has lots of certitude in the rightness of progressive thought.


By the way, in case anyone missed it, up a few posts Anax implied that voting Democrat and giving to charity are equal virtues. That tells you all you need to know far more than his ridiculous stance on illegal drug use. "It's just a thing"? So crackheads are just doing their own thing, huh?

[Zarathustra]

Right, I'm hearing you, Ben.

And correcting my error, Houston is the 4th largest city. Chicago is #3.

[Talisker]

Zarathustra
Location: Houston, TEXAS
Man, would you guys down in TEXAS just finish swelling your state pride the rest of the way and just secede already? Sheesh.

[Jason McCullough]

The only debate commentary you need:

http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2004_10_03_fafblog_archive.html#109732846789997814

John Kerry says he has a plan to pay for his programs by negotiatin with leprechauns for their rich supply of leprechaun gold. George Bush indignantly points out that this would be "givin the leprechauns exactly what they want" an calls for an invasion of Leprechaunland which he points out will pay for itself.

George Bush says he has protected the environment with such policies as his Healthy Smog Initiative an his Delicious Mercury Act. John Kerry says that mercury is not really as delicious as the president says it is an says he has a plan to protect the environment by holdin a summit with it. George Bush follows up by sayin he has a plan to preserve all creatures by leadin them two by two onto a real big boat.

[bago]

I pay my taxes, I work, I don't use illegal drugs, I take care of my family. I put myself through college, I pay my bills on time, I donate quite a bit to several charities and causes. What's the problem here, just that I am different than you?


Well, I have gladly used illegal drugs, and have found that my life has been greatly enriched by this fact.

Alcohol is about the hardest drug you can do.

Prohibition leads to crime syndicates. That far worse than a couple of kids being high on 3rd street in the afternoon.

[John Many Jars]

Right, I'm hearing you, Ben.

And correcting my error, Houston is the 4th largest city. Chicago is #3.

To be fair, Houston was #3 for a while there, before the oil bust.

[Brian Koontz]

during a time that's supposed to be "the most polarized time in history."

I'm tired of hearing this crap. The events leading up to the Civil War and Revolutionary War, as well as early 20th century labor vs. business and Depression wealth disparity, were all more polarized. The divides leading up to the Civil War were truly massive.

During a time that's supposed to be "the most polarized time in history" for those who have forgotten history. Some people (especially in America) define "history" by "from the time I was born until now".

The reason things *seem* polarized is that Radicals have taken the White House. They don't represent America. If Fidel Castro managed to be seen as a Republican or Democrat and became the President, they would say "its the most polarized time in history".

One thing might be accurate... its the *most stupid* time in US history. Its also probably accurate that its the most polarized time in the nation's capital. I remember Wilson being fairly radical, but has there ever been a more radical administration in the United States?

Conservatives have been coopted. They haven't been convinced of the Neocon Agenda... hell, most of them don't even know there IS ONE. This major ignorance has allowed a radical progression.

Has any major media outlet reported on the Neocon Agenda with respect to the Bush Administration? You know, just laying out what the Bush Administration wants to do? Its goals, its expected actions? It doesn't fit well into a world of sound bites and the Ultimate Middle, but it fits ok into a world of "informing the populace".

Until the disconnect between what the informed know and what the ignorant know is fixed, there will SEEM to be "polarization". The Media has failed the present, but can succeed in the future.

[TrodKnee]

Polarization = ratings. Don't hold your breath waiting for the media to stop portraying the country as anything but at extreme odds. Conflict is interesting, cooperation is boooooring...

[Anaxagoras]

By the way, in case anyone missed it, up a few posts Anax implied that voting Democrat and giving to charity are equal virtues.
No, no I didn't. What I did imply (and am now stating explicitly) is that giving to charity and consistently fighting for a society in which such charities are a necessity is a moral wash. Individually, you're helping out, while at the same you're fighting for collective actions which fuck people. I think it's much better to instead fight for a society that forces all its participants to help its weaker members. Simply "voting Democrat" isn't doing much... especially since stating it in terms of political party doesn't get at the underlying issue. If the Democrat you're voting for believes in regressive taxation and elimination of what litttle social safety net we have, then voting Democrat doesn't do jack shit. However, getting thoroughly politically active (both monetarily and in terms of your labour) helps a lot more than simply giving to charity, since more people are benefitted from your actions.

Disclosure: I haven't been doing my share in terms of charity or political action recently, since simply transferring professions has eaten up most of my spare time and funds. (I've gone from chemistry to computers.) But that transition is almost finished, so hopefully I can start donating time and money to progressive candidates.... who I suspect will be Democrat, but I'd happily support a Republican if he/she were the one with a progressive platform.

That tells you all you need to know far more than his ridiculous stance on illegal drug use. "It's just a thing"? So crackheads are just doing their own thing, huh?
Nope... crackheads are fucking up their life. Just as people who gamble away their houses are fucking up their life. Alternately, people taking ecstasy (or smoking a joint) once a week are just having a good time and possibly enriching their lives. Similarly, someone who goes to Vegas to gamble for a weekend once every two months and only puts a reasonable amount of money on the table is also just having a good time, and possibly enriching their lives. It's all about how you do those activities that makes them good or bad... not the activities themselves.

Pretty wacky position, isn't it Ben? Tell me... do you ever think before you post?

[ChrisGrenard]

Interestingly enough, a doctor I talked to about 3 weeks ago explained ecxtasy to me (I think I spelled it wrong there)

Anyway, to sum it up, apparantly it was a real drug running through the approval process (it was for people who had trouble making "connections" in their brain) when it turned out that some people were using it more or less recreationally. Due to some turn of events, it became illegal. He claimed that in fact it is a fanstastic drug for people who need it because it helps fascilitate how the brain makes connections.

This has been your sidetrack of the day.

[Jason McCullough]

Interestingly enough, a doctor I talked to about 3 weeks ago explained ecxtasy to me (I think I spelled it wrong there)

Anyway, to sum it up, apparantly it was a real drug running through the approval process (it was for people who had trouble making "connections" in their brain) when it turned out that some people were using it more or less recreationally. Due to some turn of events, it became illegal. He claimed that in fact it is a fanstastic drug for people who need it because it helps fascilitate how the brain makes connections.

This has been your sidetrack of the day.

And that right there explains what on earth is going on with our drug policy. Does it make you feel good, and not have a huge industry lobby already behind it? Off it goes.....

[Jamie Madigan]

And that right there explains what on earth is going on with our drug policy. Does it make you feel good, and not have a huge industry lobby already behind it? Off it goes.....
What? Isn't the pharmaceutical industry bursting with mood enhancing drugs?

Which begs the question: Why aren't these kinds of drugs (and others) being produced on a black market the way recreational drugs are? Are anti-depresents and blood pressure drugs too hard to make? Or would they be too expensive to buy in quantities needed for regular (vs. recreational) use? Now that I think about it, it's probably the latter.

[BrewersDroop]

Turns out that factcheck.org had their facts wrong about Bush's part ownership of a timber company. The company in question, Lone Star Trust, does have part ownership of a timber company now but did not in 2001 when the $84 in question was declared in Bush's income tax returns.

Still, it's a moot point, as Kerry's point about what constitutes a 'small business' for tax purposes still stands.

[Sidd_Budd]

What? Isn't the pharmaceutical industry bursting with mood enhancing drugs? ... Are anti-depresents and blood pressure drugs too hard to make?

I don't know enough about the side effects of blood pressure meds, but I'm pretty sure anti-depressants wouldn't make non-depressed people feel happy and euphoric. There's good evidence that positive moods and negative moods have separate physiological and neurological components -- they seem to be two distinct systems, rather than a single mood system with "positive" on one end and "negative" on the other.

Most people I've spoken to who have used anti-depressants report that it decreases the intensity of their negative moods, so that they can experience their (pre-depression) normal positive moods again. It doesn't do much to the intensity of their positive moods. I'm not sure how they would affect a non-depressed person. Maybe after running over your beloved family pet, you'd simply shrug and say "oh well, circle of life..."?

Of course, an enterprising drug dealer could probably convince enough of his or her clients that the drug does produce euphoria, and make money off the placebo effect.

[Ben]

Anax- And Zara not using illegal drugs makes clear he isn't in the "fucking up his life" subset of drug users.

Also, enriching your life? I'm calling bullshit on that, smokey. Drugs can make you feel good and can get you laid and it's a shame the government and drug industry work so hard to screw everyone, but if you can use drugs to enrich your life your life isn't worth enriching.

Also, as a side note, it's interesting how progressives' dislike of all things corporate make them hate the FDA for keeping ectasy and such off the market yet at the very same time they hate the FDA for not protecting the children from ephedra and other herbal supplements. The desire for the nanny state fights with the desire to get high, and somehow both win?

As to your other argument, you can't start a paragraph with "no" then immediately prove me right. OK, so not simply Democrat, but anyone progressive? Restated for everyone:
"Voting progressive and giving to charity are equal virtues."

You really don't see the difference between giving up your own money and forcing everyone else give their money?

[Jason McCullough]

Also, enriching your life? I'm calling bullshit on that, smokey. Drugs can make you feel good and can get you laid and it's a shame the government and drug industry work so hard to screw everyone, but if you can use drugs to enrich your life your life isn't worth enriching.

I wasn't aware alcohol was a universal life destroyer.

[bago]

Anyway, to sum it up, apparantly it was a real drug running through the approval process (it was for people who had trouble making "connections" in their brain) when it turned out that some people were using it more or less recreationally. Due to some turn of events, it became illegal. He claimed that in fact it is a fanstastic drug for people who need it because it helps fascilitate how the brain makes connections.


Funnily enough, at burning man I wound up hanging out with the guy who recently lobbied to get the first recent medicinal trials of MDMA approved. Some of the stories about lobbying he tole me were quite amusing.

[Anaxagoras]

Anyway, to sum it up, apparantly it was a real drug running through the approval process (it was for people who had trouble making "connections" in their brain) when it turned out that some people were using it more or less recreationally. Due to some turn of events, it became illegal. He claimed that in fact it is a fanstastic drug for people who need it because it helps fascilitate how the brain makes connections.


Yeah, it was originally used as an aide for psychologists (or maybe psychiatrists... I'm not real sure which group used it.) but then some Brits got ahold of it and started using it for party purposes. And since substances used to party are evil and nasty, voila! Illegal substance du jour.

Which is weird, because we have yet to find any long term physiological damage that ecstasy causes. Course, there has been a dearth of good research on the subject, thanks to its illegality, so it's entirely possible that there are side effects that we don't know about.

Warning: ecstasy may cause nausea, vomitting, irregular heartbeat, diarrhea, weight loss, weight gain, moodiness, hair loss, psychosis, and just general silliness.

[Ben]

McCullough- What are you talking about?

[Jason McCullough]

McCullough- What are you talking about?

You went off about how drugs couldn't possibly enrich anyone's life, which is a strange thing to say, considering how alcohol is interwoven with the fabric of every society on the planet. Alcohol in moderation (ok, at least in the west) is pretty much universally considered to enrich your life.

[triggercut]

McCullough- What are you talking about?

You went off about how drugs couldn't possibly enrich anyone's life, which is a strange thing to say, considering how alcohol is interwoven with the fabric of every society on the planet. Alcohol in moderation (ok, at least in the west) is pretty much universally considered to enrich your life.

Actually, it does more than that.

At the advice of my brother (who's a surgeon in private practice back in Missouri), I see one of his buddies from USC who's a cardiologist here in Northern Virginia. (There's a real nasty, nasty history of heart disease in our family, especially for the guys; few of us in prior generations lived to see 50....).

My cardiologist recommends strongly that in addition to my diet, my anti-cholesterol meds, and vitamins that I have a glass of red wine frequently. Thankfully, managing a restaurant makes this easy and fun to comply with.

I'd say that it's definitely enriching my life.

Backpedal Ben has some work to do to wriggle out of this rhetorical corner...:D

[Ben]

Maybe my definition of enrich is different than yours, but regardless of that your comment still doesn't make any sense. "Not enriching" =| "universal life destroying".


Drinking has generally been considered a vice, by the way. Enriched?

When you find out someone is a teetotaler, do you go: "Oh, poor guy, missing out on so much.."?

Edit: triggercut, do you think carrots enrich your life? Dumbass.

[bago]

Better living through chemistry is a hallmark of modern man.

I am not sacred, I violate no eternal tenets by my choice of chemical consumption.

I suffer the consequences of my choices like anyone with sentience should.

I am another DHMO addict.

[Lunch of Kong]

Man, would you guys down in TEXAS just finish swelling your state pride the rest of the way and just secede already? Sheesh.

Didn't we already secede from Mexico? I thought so...

[Anaxagoras]

Edit: triggercut, do you think carrots enrich your life? Dumbass.

I would think so, yes. They're good for your health, add a nice flavor to many dishes, and taste really good all by themselves. Perhaps a certain someone should stop and ask what "enriching your life" means. I'm sure there are plenty of people on this board that would be happy to explain the English language to you. All you have to do is ask.

[chemdem]

Better living through chemistry is a hallmark of modern man.

I am not sacred, I violate no eternal tenets by my choice of chemical consumption.

I suffer the consequences of my choices like anyone with sentience should.

I am another DHMO addict.

The M is redundant and is never used for common names for CAS# 7732-18-5.

[JScott]

"Merck of Darmstadt, Germany are the (lapsed) patent holders of MDMA. The German patent number is 274,350. It was filed on December 24, 1912; issued on May 16, 1914; assigned to E. Merck in Darmstadt; and unearthed decades later by Dr A. Shulgin."

"Merck's patent application was for a styptic medication, a vasoconstrictor known as hydrastinin. MDMA is listed in the application only as a chemical intermediate. "


edit-crap, interesting to me, but didn't realize I had posted it. quotes are from here http://www.mdma.net/merck/index.html

[Jason McCullough]

Maybe my definition of enrich is different than yours, but regardless of that your comment still doesn't make any sense. "Not enriching" =| "universal life destroying".


Drinking has generally been considered a vice, by the way. Enriched?

When you find out someone is a teetotaler, do you go: "Oh, poor guy, missing out on so much.."?

Edit: triggercut, do you think carrots enrich your life? Dumbass.


but if you can use drugs to enrich your life your life isn't worth enriching.

In other words, if you use drugs you're obviously a total loser. Just like how if you're a total loser if you use alcohol, or something.

[Anders Hallin]

Alcohol consumption and violent crimes show an almost perfect correlation.
Just sayin'

[Tim Partlett]

It seems that some people cannot accept that you can enrich your life through enjoying yourself, but instead only through pain and hard work. I have had many amazing experiences, and met many wonderful people, that I would not have, if not for sociable drinking. That doesn't mean that not drinking is bad for you, or that drinking is good for you - it's just a lifestyle choice. It's like the difference between staying at home and travelling.

[Equis]

It seems that some people cannot accept that you can enrich your life through enjoying yourself, but instead only through pain and hard work. I have had many amazing experiences, and met many wonderful people, that I would not have, if not for sociable drinking. That doesn't mean that not drinking is bad for you, or that drinking is good for you - it's just a lifestyle choice. It's like the difference between staying at home and travelling.

Moderation.

And the sentient consciouness of consequence.

Social drinking is pretty much an activity. Like playing football with a bunch of guys or sitting around huddled over a LAN network. If done in moderation, sure, It could very well enrich your life. Alcohol as a drug in that respect is pretty much like playing videogames, it's just something you enjoy.

Drugs on the other hand tend to come with the added psychological, if not overtly physiological side effect of addiction. However sentient you are, unless you posess superhuman will, you might not be able to stop whatever drugs you are on, to consume your life.

That's what alcoholism is, folks.
That's what drug abuse is all about.

At some point, after all the drugs that make you feel good about your shitty "real" life, you'll realize. Hey man, if it's so easy to feel good, to enjoy myself, why don't I just take drugs ALL the time? Because at some point, you're not exactly enjoying yourself. You're convincing yourself you're enjoying yourself.

Sides, you're can't really be called German if you don't at leat drink Beer.
OCKTOBERFEST!!!!

[triggercut]

Edit: triggercut, do you think carrots enrich your life? Dumbass.

Check out the Big Brain on Ben.

So....carrots are a *drug*? We were talking about drugs (specifically, by context, recreational drugs) enriching one's life were we not, and your stupid fucking contention that it was impossible? I was merely stating that one particularly easy to buy recreational drug (alcohol) is now hailed, even if reluctantly, by doctors around the world for the beneficial properties it seems to hold for the health of the cardiovascular system.

And as a matter of fact, no they don't enrich *my* life, as I fucking hate the taste of them with the fire of a thousand suns. Perhaps maybe it would be an accurate observation at this point, Ben, to say that while some things (recreational drugs, legal drugs, over-the-counter drugs, Pepsi, cocker spaniels, the Eiffel Tower) enrich the lives of *some*, those same things may not be beneficial for everyone. What a crazy fucked up notion, huh?

[triggercut]

btw--

If anybody needs anything, (you know, the kids call it "Orange Crunch" or "Bugs Bunny Flava"), there's this dude who hangs out at the farmer's market...he'll hook you the fuck UP, man. He has really good shit.

[Ben]

Jason- What the fuck are you going on about? That's the second ridiculous Chet-worthy strawman this thread.

triggercut- Why are drugs different than carrots? All your hilarious capitalization doesn't hide you missing the goddamn point. If being part of a healthy diet enriches your life carrots qualify. Stop trying to be clever, it doesn't suit you.

Anax- In the context used, enrich pretty clearly did not mean 'not bad', but that's what it's being used as now. Your initial use: "Alternately, people taking ecstasy (or smoking a joint) once a week are just having a good time and possibly enriching their lives." Note how enriching is used as something beyond "having a good time"?

[Nick Walter]

What definition of enrichment are you using Ben? I think this is one of those silly arguments that spring up by people arguing different concepts that they happen to be labelling with the same term.

I think that healthy moderate use of recreational drugs can facilitate new (positive) experiences and forge social bonds. This counts as enrichment in my book.

Mandatory Disclaimer In Case I Ever Go Into Politics: I also believe that it is very easy with some drugs to cross the line from healthy moderate use to life-destroying abuse, so extreme caution is warranted.

[Tim Partlett]

Moderation.

And the sentient consciouness of consequence.

Social drinking is pretty much an activity. Like playing football with a bunch of guys or sitting around huddled over a LAN network. If done in moderation, sure, It could very well enrich your life. Alcohol as a drug in that respect is pretty much like playing videogames, it's just something you enjoy.

Drugs on the other hand tend to come with the added psychological, if not overtly physiological side effect of addiction. However sentient you are, unless you posess superhuman will, you might not be able to stop whatever drugs you are on, to consume your life.

That's what alcoholism is, folks.
That's what drug abuse is all about.

At some point, after all the drugs that make you feel good about your shitty "real" life, you'll realize. Hey man, if it's so easy to feel good, to enjoy myself, why don't I just take drugs ALL the time? Because at some point, you're not exactly enjoying yourself. You're convincing yourself you're enjoying yourself.

Sides, you're can't really be called German if you don't at leat drink Beer.
OCKTOBERFEST!!!!

I'm actually an Englishman working in Germany, but you are right, the beer here is damn good ;).

I think you will find it depends on the drug. Some drugs are nearly impossible to use in moderation, while for others it is easy. I don't touch anything illegal myself, but from the experience of my friends, most of the commonly used narcotics, like cannabis, extasy and cocaine (not crack) don't appear to affect their lives in any negative way, and are just as easy to take in moderation as drinking. Most of my friends also lead very fulfilling lives and don't need drink or drugs to enrich them, they just choose to take that option. The idea that anyone who drinks or takes drugs must be desperate, or some kind of degenerate, is very wrong.

[BrewersDroop]

Anyone who believes that drugs are incapable of enriching one's life experiences has clearly never had sex after taking a few bong hits.

[Anaxagoras]

Stop trying to be clever, it doesn't suit you.


Ah, sweet irony. Another thing that enriches my life.

BTW, Nick posed an excellent question, and it would indeed solve much of this. I was too busy mocking your attempts at thought, but being constructive for a moment isn't such a bad idea.

What is the definition that you're using for enrich?

[XtienMurawski]

I think Bush is severely overcoached, while somehow still being underprepared.

There was a moment in the second debate that was notable for showing this. It was the timber company moment. I'm not talking about whether or not Bush owns a timber company and just doesn't remember it. Right after he said, "It's news to me!" he was sort of taken away with riding the laugh wave of the audience. He started his little "heh-heh" laugh, but it only lasted for a fraction of a second, maybe two. Then you saw him visibly calm himself, stopping the laugh and moving the microphone away from himself just slightly. He took a breath. A moment later he tried the, "Need some wood?" joke.

I bumped it back a couple of times to see the moment, because to me it was quite striking. I almost felt sorry for him, because you could just see the wheels turning, hear the voice in his head, "Must not do the annoying laugh. Must not do the annoying laugh." And then see him exert a sort of discipline to stop it, but just a second too late.

He must have a list of things like that that his handlers are on him about, and it must be short-circuiting him like crazy. He just doesn't strike me as the type of politician who can handle that level of tinkering.

"It's a robot. Ash is a god damned robot."

-Amanpour