Debate wrap up
Kerry and Bush both said basically the same things they said last time. This time, however, Bush had his game face on. I’d call it a draw. Seems to me, they’re both the same except for that abortion thing.
11 Responses to “Debate wrap up”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 8th, 2004 at 11:05 pm
I’d suggest they’re also not the same on health care, the supreme court, the environment, taxes, and Iraq, but hey, who’s counting?
October 9th, 2004 at 1:41 am
Or gun control, or embryonic stem cell research, or the the death penalty, or the stuff that gets falsely labeled as the Patriot Act, or…
OK, so maybe they’re different on just about every friggin’ issue there is. But apart from those, and from their very different styles and personal mannerisms, they’re exactly the same.
October 9th, 2004 at 11:42 am
Why does his “game face” yell? And what’s with that sliding-jaw thing? And I’m hoping Charlie Gibson didn’t soil himself – I would have, with Bush charging at me. Yikes.
October 9th, 2004 at 1:19 pm
They both get the statistics wrong…and the only people that care are the ones that don’t like them. At least GW has a personality. I’m giving last night to Bush – he was no more wrong than Kerry and one helluva lot more enjoyable. 🙂
October 9th, 2004 at 2:17 pm
I guess we’ve found another thing Xrlq and I can agree upon: It annoys us when self-proclaimed independents try to pretend there are no important differences between the candidates, when there are obviously many. 😉
October 9th, 2004 at 4:05 pm
the differences are usually degree more than substance.
& as far as gun control goes, they bith support every existing unconstitutional law & want to pass at least two more (another AWB & a “gun show loophole” law). So on gun control I’d say they’re close enough to be considered identical for all practical purposes.
But here’s another example: taxation. Bush claims he wants to keep his tax cuts permanent. Kerry claims he wants to roll back those cuts for 2% (his numbers) of people. While some of us libertarian minded folk want the “progressive income tax” eliminated altogether. To y’all they’re different, but to me & others they’re merely arguin about how much money to steal from us We’d prefer someone who argued that no money should be stolen from us. So their difference is a matter of degrees. They both feel money should be stolen from the people. They agree on the underlying premise.
Badnarik (as far as I know) is the only candidate who rtuly differs on the taxation issue: he wants the stealing to stop. So it can be said that there are differences between Bush & Kerry on taxation for example, but for a truly different position you have to look at Badnarik (who admittedly won’t garner much support).
October 9th, 2004 at 5:38 pm
Sorry guys, don’t see a substantial difference that would result from one or the other being elected.
October 10th, 2004 at 2:42 am
So, Uncle, under President Gore, we’d still have a sparse troop commitment in Iraq? We’d still have concentration camps at Guantanamo Bay? The AWB still would have been allowed to expire if Gore had won? You still would have gotten the same tax cuts if Gore had won? President Gore would have passed the Orwellian “Clear Skies” and “Healthy Forests” initiatives? There would still be a presidential office of “faith-based initiatives” under President Gore? Estrada and Pickering would still be on the federal bench under President Gore?
Sorry, if you really believe there’s “not much difference,” it just shows that you’re not paying attention. (Well, that, or you’re simply indifferent to the above-mentioned issues.)
October 10th, 2004 at 8:35 am
Fine, geez, they’re different some. But the last debate didn’t bring it out in them.
October 10th, 2004 at 11:19 pm
It’s not that they’re just different “some.” They’re different about a lot of issues that many people (perhaps not you) consider to be key ones. Guns. Abortion. The Environment. Health Care. Defense.
That’s why it has always seemed silly to me to claim that they are somehow the same, or even similar.
October 11th, 2004 at 12:42 pm
On most issues, it’s a matter of degree, but that still counts. Bush would sign an AWB renewal if it seemed politically convenient, but wouldn’t use his political capital to press for one. Kerry has voted for every anti-gun measure that came up for vote the whole time he has been in the Senate – he’s missed many votes, but never on this. His record shows that he’s an anti-gun fanatic, and his waving a shotgun around in public doesn’t change that. Bush wants to steal from us, Kerry wants to steal more. Bush is rather indifferent to deregulation, Kerry is for more regulation. So in all these areas (where the President really wouldn’t have much of a role if we followed the Constitution), Bush is bad, Kerry much worse. Whether that means “hold your nose and vote for Bush” or vote for Badnarik is up to you.
Note that the gun-banning socialists in the Democratic party are in no doubt at all about the difference…
Then there is one area, which actually is the President’s business, where Bush and Kerry are dramatically different – the Commander-In-Chief part of the job. A draft-dodging drunk in this job is bad enough, but Kerry has revealed whole new dimensions of unfitness. Kerry has been fairly anti-military ever since his release from active duty, accusing his fellow soldiers of war-crimes, throwing someone’s medals over the White House fence, and voting against most military spending ever since. He has never even apologized for his over-the-top statements when he was with the VVAW; as a military veteran myself, these statements in themselves make it impossible for me to vote for him or to think he could ever be an effective CinC.