Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Presidential Debates

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Presidential Debates

    The first debate is about to start!

    First presidential debate:
    University of Miami
    Coral Gables, FL
    Thursday, September 30
    Jim Lehrer
    Anchor and Executive Editor, The NewsHour, PBS

    Vice presidential debate:
    Case Western Reserve University
    Cleveland, OH
    Tuesday, October 5
    Gwen Ifill
    Senior Correspondent, The NewsHour, and Moderator, Washington Week, PBS

    Second presidential debate:
    Washington University in St. Louis
    St. Louis, MO
    Friday, October 8
    Charles Gibson
    Co-Anchor, ABC News Good Morning America

    Third presidential debate:
    Arizona State University
    Tempe, AZ
    Wednesday, October 13
    Bob Schieffer
    CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent, and Moderator, Face the Nation

    Each debate shall begin at 9:00 p.m. EDT.


    Format

    The format for the debates, as announced on June 17, 2004, shall be as follows:

    Each debate shall have a single moderator and last for 90 minutes.
    In the first and third presidential debates and the vice presidential debate the candidates shall be seated with the moderator at a table.
    The first presidential debate shall focus primarily on domestic policy and the third presidential debate shall focus primarily on foreign policy. The second presidential debate shall be held as a town meeting in which citizens will pose questions to the candidates. The vice presidential debate shall cover both foreign and domestic policy topics.
    There shall be no opening statements; there shall be two-minute closing statements.
    The order of questioning and closing statements shall be determined by coin toss.
    The moderator's job in the first and third presidential debates and the vice presidential debate will be to introduce and change topics, to ensure that the participants have equal time, and to encourage some direct exchange among the candidates. The moderators will select all topics and questions.
    In the second presidential debate, the town meeting participants will pose their questions to the candidates. The town meeting participants will review their questions with the moderator before the debate for the sole purpose of avoiding duplicate questions. The participants in the town meeting, to be chosen by the Gallup Organization, will be undecided voters from the St. Louis, Missouri, standard metropolitan statistical area.
    The moderators will have discretion to ask follow-up questions in all debates.
    Each debate shall take place before a live audience.
    \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
    Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

  • #2
    A clear win for John Kerry!

    I was skeptical about the stringent rules for the debate:

    -time limitations, at end of time red light comes on.

    -cant engage each other.

    -Cannot ask questions of each other; rhetorical questions only

    -cannot leave their podium.

    It seemed a format that served Bush better, but

    it clearly went for Kerry better! Even in two minute

    periods, sometimes Bush didn't have enough to say.

    Mmm.. hmmm.... interersting to see what the polls will say next...
    \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
    Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

    Comment


    • #3
      Jerico:

      What was it Bush said like a kabillion times the other night? "It's hard work." Right, like Bush has ever worked a single day's hard work in his whole fucking life. Instead, other people's children get to go to Iraq and die for this:

      --------------------

      The final judgement

      * Iraqi Survey Group: There were no WMD
      * Saddam less of a threat in 2003 than in 1998
      * Bush and Blair's case for war is demolished

      http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=569588

      --------------------

      "45 minutes" we were told. "We know precisely where the WMD are" we were told. "Saddam is an imminent threat" we were told. Hell, most amerikans still think there is/was "a connection between Saddam and AQ."

      Stupid. Stupid. Stupid....

      Comment


      • #4
        :idea:
        \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
        Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

        Comment


        • #5
          I started writing a post and gave up on it.

          I didn't know WTF the point of it was going to be

          Maybe it was leading to... "People are stupid."
          but I didn't feel like putting that kind of message up.

          It doesn't matter how well I can write something. If someone
          doesn't agree with my opinion, it's always possible to say that
          I'm on a moral high-horse, or I don't like other people's opinions,
          what makes you right when at least 50% don't agree... etc.. etc...
          etc....

          maybe I'll post my partial post here...

          10/7/04:

          I am a truth seeker.

          It has been said that sometimes "people can't handle the truth."

          I now realize that this might be a true statement.

          The truth about this administration is that they lead us all into
          an unecessary war-- a war of choice, not last resort-- to fulfill their ideologically driven agenda.

          People who have decided to vote for Bush can't seem to accept that
          possibility despite the overwhelming evidence. Either that or they are willing to turn a blind eye to it, showing that morality can be a selective kind of thing.

          The current situation we're in, it seems we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

          You tell everyone what you just know in your heart, with the strongest convictions, backed with evidence, is the truth, yet some will turn a blind eye to it.

          On the other hand, the authority figures that these people kowtow to can tell the biggest lies ever and be believed.

          What if things were reversed? If the Dems were in the White House and Kerry (or whatever character assassinated figure you have in there), would the Republicans support a war in Iraq into which they were mislead?

          What if it were true that Iraq was clearly an immenent threat? Believe it or not, I would be more at ease because I could rest better knowing that our leaders are not gigantic liar snake-men. But things wouldn't be much different. All the god-fearing fear-filled people would be acting the same, afraid that a big bomb is going to kill us all, only there would be more of them. We would have a "united country" like we supposedly did 9-11-01. A crazed mix of humanity, waving red, white and blue flags, saluting our heroes in uniform, praising our Commander in Chief, praying that our "enemies" will be crushed, so we can all be safe at home in our Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

          So it seems, it doesn't matter if we have what we have now, a war spearheaded by deceptive snakes, or if we had a justified war executed as a last resort under the leadership of trustworthy leaders, we would still get a lot of the same result... flag waving patriots who support wars, afraid of being blown to bits by big bombs.

          Perhaps it's true that people can't handle the truth. Maybe they should be given only part of the picture. Filter it. Let them see it through a veil only. Control what is seen and not seen.

          Cuz if people really know what's going on, they might not like it. They might resist being controlled. Hmmm... sounds like I have a vicious circle at this point of my logic...

          Jesus! No wonder why they (the government) might not like the cameras in there, broadcasting it on tv. There's a reason to not show dead bodies and caskets of fallen soldiers.
          Well since there are cameras there, it might help to spin things. Why all bad news? There's good news too. Show the good news!

          Sometimes the cameras shouldn't be in there at all. People sometimes just can't handle the truth!

          I say, wake up and smell the shit, people! It stinks!

          I guess for me, it's about figuring out what the biggest lie is,
          and as a matter of prioritizing, getting rid of that one first.
          ___________________
          [They're]
          Trying to take my indignance away from me

          Bloody murder is the best I've heard her scream
          Holy devil in the flesh some might believe
          And they take thine majesty so seriously
          Cuz it's the big lies more likey to be believed.

          As you're raped by another monkey circus freak
          Cuz it's the big lies more likely to be believed.


          -- "Holy Water" Soundgarden, badmotorfinger LP

          Holy water is rusting me
          \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
          Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

          Comment


          • #6
            It doesn't matter how well I can write something. If someone
            doesn't agree with my opinion, it's always possible to say that
            I'm on a moral high-horse, or I don't like other people's opinions,
            what makes you right when at least 50% don't agree... etc.. etc...
            etc....
            I hope you don't think my comment was directed at you. I don't have any problems with the things you are saying. I was only referring to the absurd idea that people care about others more than they care about themselves. That doesn't mean you can't honestly care about others...just not more. That would go against self-preservation, which I don't think happens all too often.

            Comment


            • #7
              No, I had more conservative people in mind.

              I think it's possible for people to care about others more than themselves.

              I'm sure people who are parents on here can vouch for that.

              Myself, I would die in order to save my 7 year old cousin that I love
              with all my heart. She isn't even my own child.

              I would trade my life for hers in a heartbeat, no hesitation.
              \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
              Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jerico
                No, I had more conservative people in mind.

                I think it's possible for people to care about others more than themselves.

                I'm sure people who are parents on here can vouch for that.

                Myself, I would die in order to save my 7 year old cousin that I love
                with all my heart. She isn't even my own child.

                I would trade my life for hers in a heartbeat, no hesitation.
                Well, if you read my original post, that's not what I'm talking about...I'm talking about people who claim to care more about feeding Ethiopians than feeding themselves, etc.

                Comment


                • #9
                  :?:

                  I read your first post again and I have a comment on AIDS.
                  I wrote about AIDS in the other thread that is now locked.

                  We understand AIDS and HIV very well. We already understand that disease very well. It's almost impossible to find a cure for a virus because they have a high rate of mutation. They are a nasty form of life that has been around for a long time, they are parasites that are perfectly evolved to infect us and use us to propogate, making us sick or killing us in the process.
                  If we have a cure for AIDS, it has already been discovered. Like I mentioned before, the 3 drug combo that Magic Johnson uses completely inhibits the life cycle of HIV. The amount of HIV detectable in his blood is about nil. The reason that this will not cure the world is because the drugs are too expensive. I also mentioned the problems developing a vaccine for such a deadly virus.
                  If we are pouring a lot of money into AIDS research, it's my guess that it's mostly not doing much more than ensuring AIDS researchers have a job. As far as progress, I doubt that much progress is being made to find a universal drug or vaccine that can eradicate the virus. Maybe that's me being cynical, but I do understand science, biology in particular, very well.
                  The best we can do is everyone being educated and take personal responsibility in not engaging in behaviors that transmit HIV. We should do our best to prevent from contracting it. That's not necessarily doom and gloom, cuz it certainly doesn't mean stop having sex. The idea that sex these days is more dangerous than the time when AIDS wasn't an epidemic is not exactly a true statement.
                  \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                  Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I saw a clip of Chris Rock last night
                    In his performance, he said that here will never be a cure for AIDS because a lot of money is made off of drugs. If they had a cure, they would lose money, so they are not interested in finding a cure.

                    That's too bad. Cuz some people who never thought such a thing before will believe that. I think what I said is closer to the truth.

                    And I am aware of the helth care/ medication problem.
                    \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                    Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

                      Yeah. It's unscientific. So what!! :)

                      Who won the debate? * 1713257 responses

                      Pres. Bush 38%

                      Sen. Kerry 62%
                      _______________________

                      It's unscientific. So what? :)

                      http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/result...9.exclude.html

                      Who do you think won the debate?

                      George W. Bush 14% 13793 votes

                      John Kerry 84% 80221 votes

                      Evenly matched 2% 1518 votes
                      Total: 95532 votes
                      \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                      Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        According to The Drudge Reprt:

                        **EXCLUSIVE**

                        A QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO PRESIDENT BUSH IN NEXT SUNDAY'S NEW YORK TIMES HAS IGNITED PREPUBLICATION SPARKS, THE DRUDGE REPORT HAS LEARNED.

                        FORMER WSJ REPORTER AND BEST-SELLING AUTHOR RON SUSKIND QUOTES BUSH AS TELLING A PRIVATE LUNCHEON OF TOP SUPPORTERS: 'I'M GOING TO BE REAL POSITIVE, WHILE I KEEP MY FOOT ON JOHN KERRY'S THROAT.'

                        SUSKIND, A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT, WILL CLAIM BUSH MADE THE STARTLING COMMENTS LAST MONTH IN WASHINGTON.

                        Hmmmm... we shall see, Mr. President, we shall see. I have a feeling it will be your neck under the boot heel.

                        HEY! Everyone who watches the last debate tonight, count how many times Bush tries to switch from the scheduled debate topic of "domestic issues" to the war in Iraq. His obvious segue will be the topic of Homeland Security, but let's watch how many times he shifts the debate away from things like health care and schooling, shall we?
                        "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                        --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Who's got the job numbers?

                          Someone recently told me they had seen government numbers that show that 85% of people with a BA degree or higher are out of work in the U.S. Now that's a staggering percentage when you listen to Bush hammer at how people without a good education are obviously going to be disadvantaged. But what if the opposite is true - that having a good education just places more pressure on the individual to pay back school loans and so forth at the same time that there is a decreasing number of well-paying jobs for which reason higher degrees are usually sought? In other words, no one needs a degree to work at some basic service job. Now maybe Wal-mart would like to hire PhDs as store greeters, but maybe that's an unrealistic and foolish goal for everyone concerned.

                          But 85%? That has to be wrong even though I trust the source. Sadly, I was unable to get the original source for the statistic cited. Normally, I would shrug this off as nonsense, but maybe there's something to it after all.

                          Any help here?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Foozle, what got me was when the topic of outsourcing jobs came up in the debate last night, Bush said he wanted to help people get better educated. I thought, But, the computer programmers who lost their jobs to programmers in India WERE educated! You just insluted the entire lot of them, George!.

                            I also loved how, on the topic of hiring quotas, Bush spat out "Idon'tthinkthereshouldbequotas" as fast as he could then shifted topic a bit to get away from what he had just said. That told me he knew he has just said something many voters (especially minorities and women) didn't want to hear.

                            A solid win for Kerry last night, IMHO.
                            "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                            --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Okay, there's probably somewhere better to stick this reference - but I guess it is relevant to the discussion...

                              "Outsourcing the lawyers"
                              Add attorney to the growing list of white-collar jobs being shipped overseas. How far will it go?

                              http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/14/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

                              Maybe we can get Bill's opinion on the matter if and when he returns. Well, if he hasn't been outsourced by then. Perhaps not so strangely I can easily see the swift passage of legislation blocking the offshoring of the legal profession - so many politicians begin as attorneys, right?

                              Tying it back into this thread, no one could rightly claim that attorneys lacked a good education. At minimum you are looking at 4 years undergraduate work, followed by 3 years of actual law school, and then passing the bar where you want to practice law.

                              The message this sends is that any purely "intellectual" job can and will be offshored, at least potentially. If it does nothing else it weakens such a workers bargaining power for greater pay or advancement.

                              The only apparently safe jobs are those that require the physical presence of the worker to do them: plumber, gardener, barista, Wal-Mart greeter...

                              Free market assholes like to ignore simple facts like the lack of infrastructure and employment laws that makes cheap labor possible elsewhere. It's hard to imagine that workers in India could compete for price if things were not VERY different for them in their own country.

                              So instead of importing "braceros" we no longer even have to do that. We can just hire them where they live, keep them in near squalor, and reap the benefit of the savings.

                              Well, right up until the middle-class collapses and a revolution ensues.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X