I stopped watching when they got the stem cell question but I agree that it was pretty much a draw when you consider that any debate in which Bush can form coherent sentences is a small victory for him. Kerry killed him on content (or so I thought) but Bush might have been more likeable which counts for entirely too much in these things.

Someone, I forget the network, so I am sorry to not give the proper credit, said that the high-powered lawyer argument was based on statistics, facts and history(something to which some are drawn, and one which, inarguably, has merit)...but this approach lacks that which drives the Bush argument, is lacking in the Kerry campaign, and one which appeals to many voters...<i>the focus on principle</i>. I felt this was a pretty good analogy.

The focus is not on principle, it is on the appearence of principle. This was best set out in the abortion question. Bush clearly indicated that raped teens have to inform and get consent from rapist fathers. Simple he said. He is the Mayor of Simpleton. If the lowest common denominator and ignoring nuance passes for principle, then you are right. It is, however, doing exactly what the mullahs of Iran do in a stricter form - imposing a rule on society regardless of how it plays out in personal life. This sort of principle pointlessly fills jails with third striking shop-lifters. It is not for nothing that Bush has decided to make anti-court (he is attacking both judges and lawyers now) a principle of his <i>economic</i> theory. His neo-con "principles" cannot bear when rights are played out in an independent tribunal to the cost of the monied. Good principles must be imposed, like any good Tory would want. Most authoritarians like principles like that. Simple, simple - do as I say.

And many who disagree, simply resort to names like <i>simpleton</i> or <i>rude</i> or what appears, or is interpreted as such.

Bush is at a disadvantage in debate format, but I feel Kerry's argument, based on numbers and their interpretation, is one more easily delivered then one based on Principle and reality...at least, Kerry does a better job then Bush. And for many who want their head in the sand, Kerry is the right choice.

But, many doubt Kerry will deliver on his boasting of better persuading nations to join in Iraq? How will he better negotiate a deal with N. Korea? Will he allow Paris to set the agenda for the next administration to act to defend Americans? Many see through the veiled Kerry plan of "Trust me", and are of the understanding that the stakes are now too high to put a "Chamberlain" in the White House.

Kerry will say and claim anything to win, (as he did to win the Democratic ticket by embracing the anti-war crowd, and voting as to appeal to certain segments, then voting different later) deny coalition building will be tough and side-steps specifics. This appeals to the protestors and pessimists, which fill the ranks of the Democrats. Bush has been up-front, whether you agree with him or not.

I don't think Kerry is necessarily running on "Trust me" so much as he's running on "How could I possibly do worse when it comes to Iraq, North Korea and foreign relations?"

For God's sake, Wayne, is that your best debating point: "you are being rude, boo-hoo"? As if I am the first to say Bush is a simpleton. <p>Bush has no principles of governance or as you like to write "Principles". He will call anything he wants a principle, adapt and adopt pop-faith and pop-economics and lap-dogs needing "a strong leader" in preference to excerising their brains for themselves rush to it. Simpletonianism. Anti-Jeffersonian, un-American, anti-democratic unthought.

B.C. Comic Strip
by Johnny Hart

2004-10-09

"My opponent, through his 'Failed Policies' has done---"

"Everything wrong! <b>I</b> would <b>not</b> have done it that way."

"<b>I</b> would have done it differently!"

"<b>I</b> would have done it better!"

Question:"Done <b>what</b> better"?

Answer(sort of): "Um...uh..."Everything wrong."

You don't get boo-hoo from me, and no sympathy either. I am just glad you didn’t shrink-wrap my comment and call me stupid or rude, just because I said something I knew you would not agree with.

That is never the case. You get what you deserve when you flip out and get illogical or post unsubstantiated quotation. Unlike your favoured politicians I actually do have principles that work in and are based in reality. Consider that I very seldom agree with you yet seldom punish your text.

Your past condoning and defending of some of the harshest, crudest, disgraceful, immature, despicable comments, under the veil of this being the internet, flies in the face of your attempt to render all that, to you which is rude, worthy of being censored, shrink-wrapped, and rendered “stupid”.
Your past attempt to render your own definition of words like “rudeness” make your attempts to define “Principles” and "illogical" unreliable at best, and render your arguments totally irrelevant.

I do remember agreeing with you...once.

5 "renders" is a record for me!

Voot! Unreferences all. Unknowableness. I will take solace in knowing that my oven full of ribs smells better than yours.

My turkey is better! Nips & tators, brussel sprouts, cranberry sauce, somebody elses gravy. Eat ur heart out!

I was at the train station yesterday, which was packed with a great exodus of Queens students headnig out for the holiday weekend, and over heard one guy saying how he was looking forward to his mother's "lucky gravy".<p>It is "neeps" by the way, "neeps and tatties". Is that what you were brought up with? That would be an interesting scottishism to have though lasted post-immigration Wayner lineage.

It always slays me when the lefties call Bush a "simpleton", and Kerry is somehow "nuanced" - as if the ability to stand on both sides of an issue at the same time is always something to be admired; this "nuance" being seen by the left as more "intellectual", rather than what is generally is, which is: duplicitous. On Kerry's abortion "double talk" and pandering see:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39729

It was ``nips and taters`` in Troon. My lineage is linked to the ``Nessie`` area further north. The ``Wayner`` thing was the only time I have errored in a post, and has haunted me ever since.

Blah, blah, blah. If Bush says of himself and his beliefs over and over "simple, simple, simple" soorner or later you have to take him at his word. If you can't understand that Bush would require an incestuously raped teen to get consent from the rapist and understand that is bad, I feel badly for you as you appear to believe deeply in a policial platform as a matter of faith rather than reason.<blockquote class="smalltext">

*Editor's Helpful Hint#236: remember you can link yourself here with the:<blockquote> <a href="[place URL of link here]">[place text to act as underlined link here] </a></blockquote>

Copy and past this and try. I can fix it if you miss something.</blockquote>

As my great uncle was a grounds keeper in Troon, I can assure you what you heard was more neeps and tatties but with a thick Ayrshire accent it could have sounded like just about anything. I knew a former military policeman from Beith whose accent was utterly unintelligible. Good for you, though, to keep it in mind. I just made up the Wayner thing now but I will remember to being it out when I need to lard on another layer of derission.

Good grief.

I agree that the accent was a challenge, especially in the pub, sitting between a local caddy and a newfie...both on their 6th Guinness, at least.

But, I think I am right...again.

SayNay...from his picture, you would think Alan was a normal thinker. But, he has the Kerry approach...argue the issues minor shortcomings, but deny that you are against the issue. If you asked Alan if he was for abortion, he would probably say no, yet argue against why it should be legal. And, just like Kerry, think he is fooling everybody, and supporting nobody. Flip-Flop.

An example...
[Here it is !!!!]

Of course I oppose abortion and allow others to do it. I also oppose conservatism and allow for others to do that, too. If you can't grasp how that is legitimate you have a glancing understanding of what a democracy is. Living is a diverse society requires you to have firm beliefs and expect others to as well <i>and</i> that they will usually differ and often contradict.

See, SayNay......I was right, again. I told you he would do it!

I am against murder.
I am against anyone else commiting murder.
How is this an affront to democracy, pray tell?

It isn't and you apparently cannot tell the difference again. There is a point where nuance ends and thickness begins. Where are you?<p>If you are against abortion, then you must be in favour of full funding of homeless shelters to ensure the elderly psychaitric patients society has discharged onto the streets do not die in a frozen block. I suspect you are not as that requires taxes being paid. If you are not for that you are not for the safeguarding of human life, just for the warm fuzzy part of it, the white coat seals of the ethical debate. Until that day comes, imposing a policy of no loss of a certain form of life but not another is mere hypocracy. Until that day comes, I distinguish between my beliefs and what is acceptable for society.

``If you asked Alan if he was for abortion, he would probably say no, yet argue <strike>against</Strike> <b>for</b>why it should be legal.``(Although my point got through!)

Look up pluralism in the dictionary. Then read the Charter of Rights. Then ask yourself if you actually like democracy.

Beliefs...seems I recall your distain for that word in a previous dissertation. Why not adapt beliefs acceptable for society, and, be done with it?(And, I pay taxes...and want to see them spent wisely)

UR on the ropes...

Now, now, now...don`t be condescending. And, that does not mean Island dew on your windshield, Al.

I have no idea what your last three comments mean. Your batteries are running low.

Turkey will fix that, real quick!

Goodness me! It's sort of like watching a train wreck, in slow motion. Except with more page-down-ing.

We've done this for a year and a half. It's ok.

You remember dates and special occasions better then she does.

You didn't get the 18 month anniversary newsletter? I really have to check with the mailing room.

Like 'nee, I keep waiting for you two to knock each other out: then we'll check your fridges for beer and leftovers.

It's just our performance art piece trotted out for the long weekend crowd around here.

By the way, Al, the Republican Coats 1991 amendment that would require "parental notification" which Kerry voted against,DID have exceptions. It required that parents be notified UNLESS the pregnancy "resulted from incest with a parent or guardian," or if a physician determined that an emergency abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother.

Kerry, however, and the Democrats wanted much broader exceptions ie. based on the "maturity" of the teenager, or if the doctor determined it was in the teenager's "best interest" not to notify a parent, or no notification if another "adult" member" of the family consented etc.(see: <a href="www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=219.html">www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=219.html</a>).
Basically, Kerry supported teenage abortion on demand.

Kerry didn't mention any of those "exceptions" in his "nuanced" answer(see:
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/debate.transcript3/index.html.) Maybe he realized this wouldn't play well with the "simpletons" in Peoria.

In addition, the majority of "partial birth abortions" are performed in the fifth and six month of pregnancy (premies born in the sixth month have a 30 to 50% survival rate)- on p.b.a's we're not talking about some teenager saying "I've missed my period, what do I do?", we're talking about some woman saying "changed my mind, don't want it anymore".

Al, "I feel badly for you" as you sometimes care not to inform yourself before you dis others for believing in "political...faith over reason",

Kerry did <i>mention</i> an exception when he said 16 or 17 year old. You have done such good research, was he right or wrong about the state of the legislation at the time <i>he</i> was referencing - which must be during the present administration...not 13 years ago. Save the history for the well paid off vets.<p>I know what we are talking about and have a 24 week gestation human in the house myself so know the line being ridden. I will save that line "some woman saying changed my mind, don't want it anymore" for my next leftist rally.

Your last comment makes no grammarical sense, let alone substantive sense so let me be clear. I have my faith and belief but live in a pluralistic secular society. As we are asked by the God who created us, I judge not and do so personally and expect my secular non-Christian state to do the same. I don't want the state to define my faith for me any more than I want it to define it for anyone else.

Can't help it if it makes no sense - I was quoting you after all (albeit in short form)from your post/reply above: "...I feel badly for you (SayNay?)as you appear to believe deeply in a policial platform as a matter of faith rather than reason".

Vooooooooot!!! Quoting me to me is very bad form.

Hey Al, are you mis-underestimating our readers? I am sure they enjoy this as much as we do. (Did you catch it?) You get away with sending 18 month newsletters. She expects flowers.

I have readers?!?!?!

Who says Republicans can't laugh at themselves? (Try to find the Bushism)

I do.

One more for ``GenX @ 50``!

When will this thread die?

It has been hard on you...