quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Jacobs:
Hey folks, don't forget that the first Bush vs. Kerry debate is on TV tonight.

---

From what I've read over here, they have reached an 'agreement' which includes:
* not asking each other questions
* not commenting on the other participant's arguments
* there has been laid down rules for what the moderator can ask
* the audience is not allowed to applaud or in any other way express their reactions to what is said
* cameras will only show the one that is speaking, not his opponents reactions

Sounds like a real inspiring 'debate' to me...... Did I hear anybody mention "Skull and Bones"?

Steinar

How far are you willing to go in letting the current government use this tragedy to remove our freedoms? Video surveillance in every home? Shutting down this Forum? Would you approve of if they round me up for having my thoughts?
NOT a "liberal"
Bob

In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax. In that same year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, heart disease killed 700,142 Americans and cancer 553,768; various accidents claimed 101,537 lives, suicide 30,622, and homicide, not including the attacks, another 17,330. As President Bush pointed out in January, no one has been killed by terrorists on American soil since then. Neither, according to the FBI, was anyone killed here by terrorists in 2000. In 1999, the number was one. In 1998, it was three. In 1997, zero. Even using 2001 as a baseline, the actuarial tables would suggest that our concern about terror mortality ought to be on the order of our concern about fatal workplace injuries (5,431 deaths) or drowning (3,247).

THE DEBATES
September 29, 2004

By: Connie Rice
NPR - National Public Radio

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

Material by:
Connie Rice

Material from:
NPR - National Public Radio

Material about:
Election 2004

The Tavis Smiley Show, September 29, 2004 · After weeks of political wrangling, Sen. John Kerry and President Bush will square off for the first of three key presidential debates. Both camps have agreed to an elaborate, 32-page contract that spells out everything from the size of the dressing rooms to permitted camera angles.
But the controversy over the debates threatens to overshadow the events themselves. Some citizen groups complain that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) isn't as non-partisan as it should be, and that Kerry and Bush won't be pressed on urban issues. Commentator Connie Rice says that's just the tip of the iceberg, and she's got another Top 10 list -- this time: Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates.

(10.) They aren't debates!

"A debate is a head-to-head, spontaneous, structured argument over the merits of an issue," Rice says. "Under the ridiculous 32- page contract that reads like the rules for the Miss America Pageant, there will be no candidate-to-candidate questions, no rebuttal to your opponent's points, no cross questions or cross answers, no rebuttals, no follow-up questions -- that's not a debate, that's a news conference."

(9.) The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986.

"The League of Women Voters ran these debates with an iron hand as open, transparent, non-partisan events from 1976 to 1984," Rice says. "The men running the major campaigns ended their control when the League defiantly included John Anderson and Ross Perot, and used tough moderators and formats the parties didn't like. The parties snatched the debates from the League and formed the Commission on Presidential Debates -- the CPD -- in 1986."

(8.) The "independent and non-partisan" Commission on Presidential Debates is neither independent nor non-partisan.

"CPD should stand for 'Cloaking-device for Party Deceptions' -- it is not an independent commission on anything. The CPD is under the total control of the Republican and Democratic parties and by definition bipartisan, not non-partisan. Walter Cronkite called CPD-sponsored debates an 'unconscionable fraud.'"

(7.) The secretly negotiated debate contract bars Kerry and Bush from any and all other debates for the entire campaign.

"Under what I call the Debate Suppression and Monopolization Clause of the contract, it is illegal for the candidates to debate each other anywhere else during the campaign," Rice says. "We need a new criminal law for reckless endangerment of democracy."

(6.) The debate contract effectively excludes all other serious presidential candidates from participating in the debates.

"This is what I call the Obstruction of Democratic Debate Rule, which sets an impossibly high threshold for third-party candidates... Where are we, Russia? Isn't Vladimir Putin wiping out democracy in Russia by excluding all opposing candidates from the airwaves during his re-election campaigns? Most new ideas come from third parties -- they should be in the debates."

(5.) All members of the studio audience must be certified as "soft" supporters of Bush and Kerry, under selection procedures they approve.

"It's not enough to rig the debate -- they have to rig the audience, too? The contract reads: 'The debate will take place before a live audience of between 100 and 150 persons who... describe themselves as likely voters who are soft Bush supporters or soft Kerry supporters.' We should crash this charade and jump up in the middle to declare ourselves hard opponents of this Kabuki dance."

(4.) These "soft" audience members must "observe in silence."

"Soft and silent... In what I'm calling the Silence of the Lambs Clause of this absurd contract, the audience may not move, speak, gesture, cough or otherwise show that they are alive and thinking."

(3.) The "extended discussion" portion of the debate cannot exceed 30 seconds.

"Other than the stupidity of the debate contract, what topic do you know that can be extendedly discussed in 30 seconds?"

(2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control.

"Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics," Rice says. "For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working- class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare."

(1.) Fortune 100 corporations are the main funders of the CPD-sponsored debates, and the CPD's co-chairs are corporate lobbyists.

The CPD is run by Frank Fahrenkopf, a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist, and Paul Kirk, a top gambling lobbyist," Rice says. "And the biggest muliti-national corporations write the checks that fund the CPD -- Phillip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and dozens more. The audience may have to be silent and motionless, but the corporate sponsors can have banners, beer tents, Budweiser girls handing out pamphlets protesting beer taxes -- a corporate-sponsored circus to go along with the Kabuki Debates. Could we get a more fitting description of our democracy?"

"How quickly the 5 or 6 neo-conservatives who are running this country forget..."

Bush, the smiling/sneering buffoon who only wanted to own a baseball team sneaked 'em in under his coat and they scattered into the Pentagon like roaches when you turn the light on.

I thought conservatives were good at war and violence. Yer average street gang (Bloods, Crips, or Latin Killers - take yer pick) from D-town coould have done a better job in Fallujah.

Sixstringsunder: One world goverment scares me more than Muslim terrorists, Californian democrats, George W., or leaving my Delphi in open "E" year round.

The rest of the world is pretty scared of that too. Thing is, though: the 'one world government' that we're afraid of is one fronted by Dubya and propped up by his corrupt bro' and their daddy's oil cronies. Some people felt so strongly about that, they flew some planes into some buildings. That, needless to say, was very wrong. But there's a lot more going on here than left/right, black/white, wrong/right. Agendas are being served on all sides. The US has perpetrated plenty of atrocities and abuses of human rights itself, in order to pursue its aims. But as long as it's all being done in the name of preserving US citizens' freedom to enjoy cheap gas, and Megabucks Defence Corps Inc's rights to huge profits, I guess that's ok?

And as for compulsory fingerprinting etc at airports - we've been sold the idea by successive British governments that we have a 'special relationship' with the USA (this is usually when our Prime Minister is being shafted by the US over some trade agreement or re-construction contract). Apparently not. Or is this how the US gov't treats all its friends and allies - by treating them like criminals when they come visiting?

Steinar

quote:

---

For example, we are expected to believe that 2 planes had sufficient jet fuel (8600 gallons) to melt the towers, but yet another similar plane that they say hit the Pentagon barely damaged the building--this is BAD SCIENCE, and makes no sense.

---

Bob (and I promise to say it only once this time) --

Can you expand on this? Is it from one of the books or DVDs you recommended in previous threads?

1.) Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

and ........

2.) Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

How quickly the bleeding heart liberals forget....

...who wants to be included in the next attack?

Big Mike,

Don't know if you're serious or not? I've spent my whole life in New York. Not only did I know and grow up with people who lost their lives on 9/11 but I live with the threat of a repeat everyday. My kids rode the subway under the twin towers 15 minutes before the plane hit. A little close for comfort. I'm guessing the next attack won't be in Arizona.

But I still think that freedom of speech, seperation of church and state, privacy and respect for other nations is American. These days if you question the administration you are a "liberal" and "bleeding heart". Or if you listen to our Vice President "Un-American". Sounds a little like McCarthyism?

Thread closed?

]
BluYanqui-

It's not so much that I'm "pro-Kerry"...

...I'm just sure-as-hell ANTI-Bush!

To me, once again, we're stuck between the lesser of two evils.

Then again, I haven't seen ONE candidate that, actually, has inspired me...

...since I voted AGAINST Nixon!!!

And yeah:

ANYBODY BUT BUSH IN '04...even Kerry!!!

Ian

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier."
- George W. Bush, describing what it's like to be governor of Texas, Governing Magazine, July 1998

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
- George W. Bush, CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."
- George W. Bush, Business Week, July 30, 2001

Uh..so that means nobody should complain or try to change anything that is wrong here--just leave?

There's a difference between "not liking America" and criticizing some of its policies. It just ain't that simple.

OK, sorry, had to respond to that, for clarity's sake. I'll try to stay off this thread if I can!

Now, even though it is 2 am in the UK, I am going to stay up to watch the debate.

"Now let's all leave the bleeding heart anti American bullshit where it belongs..."

Sorry, but I'm not going to let that one slide. Who-the-fuck are YOU to call ME "anti-American"???

And: I'm sure-as-hell no "...bleeding heart...", either.

What profound arrogance!!!

Cowboy Georgie would be proud!!!

quote:

---

Sorry, but I'm not going to let that one slide. Who-the-fuck are YOU to call ME "anti-American"???

---

Ian, Your name is not in any of my posts. I did not even read your post. I did not call you or anyone else in particular anything at all, it was a generalization. If in your own judgement of yourself feel that you fit into that category then that is your own voluntary inclusion into that group.

I'm Big Mike Simpson Who-the-fuck are YOU?

The statement that puzzles me the most is Bob's 'it feels like Nazi Germany of 1934 - 1935.' I do not doubt you Bob, that you have these feelings. However, they are not based in fact, and there are few, if any, legitimate comparisons that can be made between the USA today, and Germany of '34-'35. For those who had friends or relatives who lived through the Holocaust, your statement would be very offensive (I know).

For the record, here are a few facts for Bob and the rest of you who slept through your high school history classes.
1933
* Hitler opens concentration camps & imprisons political opponents
* Hitler is given the power to pass laws withouth the Reichstag (Congress)
* Hitler decrees his party is the only political party
1934
* Hitler & the Night of the Long Knives where he executes 90 political opponents
1935
* Nuremburg Laws passed stripping Jews of civil rights.
* Germans cannot listen to any radio broadcast except Nazi broadcasts (don't we still have NPR?)
* Books and newspapers that are not 'Nazi' are burned or shut down

We just finished a debate between two very different political candidates for President, and afterwards, they were all smiles and hugs. That's not the Germany of '34-'35.

Bob, if you wake up in Ben Lomand, feeling like you are in Nazi German of 1934-35, then you are waking up daily in mortal fear for your life. That's how it was. Maybe California has come to that. I know I left California years ago because of repressive laws. However, here in small town America, we feel at peace in our communities and do not fear our elected officials. Life is good. Think I'll go play a little Shuffle Rag...it always makes me laugh out loud.

A very sad, and somewhat dangerous situation. When the drivel of peoples' complacencies with the power to be , ends.....they will be truly complacent.

Kay, make a stand. Speak out like you've just done. It speaks volumes to a lot of people who may not have realized that there even was a problem.

But.....come. Acknowledge that the system is wrong, but come to play.

We're all better for it.

To Big Mike Simpson:
Maybe things are different in the USA already, but in Germany I never had to give my finger prints for anything (even in East Germany), and I have been to the (East German Army). I have opened several bank accounts, I have a credit card and I have a passport. Nobody, who enters Germany or the EU has to prove that they are the rightful owners of their passport. The passport is prove of your identity. That is the point of the passport. If you have to prove that you are really the person in the passport it's just Catch-22.

To Scott:
Well, I think my decison is heavily influenced by my personal experiences in East Germany and some decisons I made for myself, when the wall came down. Now I have a choice and I have chosen. You may find that ironic, but for me it's inevitable.

Anyway, there is still the forum to exchance musical ideas and maybe a European IGS in the future.

Kay

[This message has been edited by kugraw (edited 10-01-2004).]

Yes - we should all just accept that what is good for the US is good for the world, that its leaders are wise and incorruptable, and understand that if we question any of their actions or motives we are anti-American bleeding heart liberals who deserve to be treated like criminals in order to reinforce the paranoia that Bush thrives on. It's all clear now. Strangely, some Americans still have difficulty understanding why huge numbers of people around the world hate the USA.

Sobell -"* Hitler opens concentration camps & imprisons political opponents".

Gauntamo Bay / Camp X-Ray, anyone? Not an exact parallel I know, but the echoes are there - imprisonment without trial, poitically motivated and also highly illegal. Funny how a country so proud of it's freedoms will so readily deprive those who don't share its views of their freedoms. We did the same thing over here, in northern Ireland, and that was shameful, too.

"* Nuremburg Laws passed stripping Jews of civil rights".

Brother Jeb manipulates the rules covering the Florida voter roll, to prevent large numbers of black and hispanic people from registering to vote. The rest is history.

"We just finished a debate between two very different political candidates for President"

Yes, they represent the entire political spectrum, all the way from the right to the far-right.

(don't we still have NPR?)

Yes, and you have Fox 'News' too, so don't get too smug...

"there are few, if any, legitimate comparisons that can be made between the USA today, and Germany of '34-'35. "

OK, you are right, I should have said 1932.....not 34-35. Things are not that bad....yet.

"For those who had friends or relatives who lived through the Holocaust, your statement would be very offensive (I know)."

Well, pal, I do have dead relatives as a result of the Holocaust. And so current events really offend me, along with the above quote. And the way Bush's grandfather made his money from the german war effort also offends me. And the purposeful destruction of constitutional separation of church and state also offends me.

PTO quoted well--
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up" Martin Niemöller 1892-1984, President of the World Council of Churches (1961-1968)"