TheAgitator.com
Debate Open Thread
Thursday, October 2nd, 2008Quote stolen from Reddit:
Watching tonight’s debate is like watching NASCAR. You claim you’re interested but you really just want to see a wreck.
41 Responses to “Debate Open Thread”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
I already threw up. I can’t stand either one.
But there won’t be any instant replay. You have to wait for tomorrow reply or the gasbag analyst reply after the event. Please.
Voting, at this point, seems to be the least patriotic thing I can think of.
Not surprised that neither one of the two assclowns blamed the government’s interference for the subprime debacle.
they sure love Israel a lot. And who is advocating a one state solution? It’s not the people who live on either aide of that fence.
Nukular.
all i can say is this: sean hannity is just fine sitting over at his fox news office. we don’t need a hannity clone sitting in a building across from the white house.
How did it come to this???
Gonzo: you nailed it, dude.
in palin’s defense, biden almost said nuculer. Bush’s language of dumb has entered the parlance of our day.
At least one of them said ‘personal responsibility’ … as Cappy said, too bad neither (especially Palin) didn’t bring up that Government meddling is the problem, not deregulation ….
Whoever wins November 4, please have a long, healthy life–please.
Guys, I couldn’t care less about Palin vs. Biden, but the Nuculer pronouncation thing is just asinine. I’m a Nuclear engineer, I know many nuclear engineers, physicists, etc., and LOTS of us pronounce it Nuculer. It’s a perfectly common alternate pronunciation, that is harmless and widely accepted. And it has nothing to do with Red/Blue, just where you are from and how you heard the word when you were growing up, just like ‘roof’.
I wish Biden would’ve been asked to name just one regulation that Bush & the Republicans overturned that contributed to this financial meltdown.
All this nonsense about nucular. The Democrats climbed all over Ike about “heliocopter” as well.
I am not defending either candidate, but will say this: I’d rather have someone around who sounds like the rest of us than some smooth-talking eastern-seaboard privileged elite snob like Roosevelt, or some shanty-Irish-descended lay-abouts who never earned a buck for themselves and who will forever be thought of as untouchable royalty.
“i’d rather have someone around who sounds like the rest of us ”
Yeah, look how well that worked with bush.
This anti-intellectualism that is the hallmark of the mentally lazy and rampant in modern america will be the undoing of this country.
#13
Bosniacs
Biden, a part-time Constitutional Law professor, said that the VP’s role is Executive because it is created in Article 1.
1) The executive branch is created in Article II.
2) The Vice President is mentioned (although, not technically “created,” I suppose) in Article I
3) Article I creates the legislative branch.
4) The only mention of the VP in Article I is in connection with his LEGISLATIVE role.
Palin was the only person tonight who talked about personal responsibility, and her closing argument was about freedom. If that doesn’t placate you guys, then nothing will.
Acting on it would go a lot further than talking about it.
The Cubs really suck ass.
“This anti-intellectualism that is the hallmark of the mentally lazy and rampant in modern america will be the undoing of this country.”
Yes, it’s a new phenomenon that is confined to this country.
The seperation of powers doctrine requires one or the other. Either the VP has executive power and is subject to the rules of the executive branch or legislative power and is prohibited from executive authority.
And yes, the level anti-intellectualism is unique to the US.
Man, I’ve been hammering away at this anti-intellectual legacy of the GOP on other blogs, and it’s great to see it pop up on here independently.
Intellectual laziness is what is undoing this country. So long as you have a good persona, the ability to recite talking points is all that is necessary to be a viable presidential and vice presidential candidate. Nothing more is required, and anything more is deemed ‘elitist’. Academic success, with a high pedigree or not, is frowned upon. The demand for mediocrity in this country far outweighs the supply, but it looks like, as markets go, the supply has slowly crept towards the ultimate equilibrium. The more Palin is spun as the “Next Reagan”, the more likely we’ll have a Paris Hilton as the “next John Adams”.
Thank you JD. The problem is Sarah Palin is a complete moron. She couldn’t argue anything today without changing the topic and can’t even name a supreme court case besides Roe vs Wade. She clearly isn’t all that educated and as for her intelligence she doesn’t have much going for her there. She basically just read her script today and didn’t argue the actual point half the time. The fact that she could be president when (most likely when) Mccain dies is pretty scary. It’s just cynical politics to try and get someone who appeals to the soccer mom demographic and tries to identify with these simpletons.
my 13 year old daughter had to watch it for class. she wasn’t impressed or inspired. ‘they just sound like politicians’
I’m voting based on what they’ve done in the past, not what they say they’re gonna do in the future. Neither McCain nor Obabama will be getting my vote.
I guess I knew it was coming, but the bipartisan consensus against gay marriage made me wanna puke. Would it work to say, “I believe we have bigger things to worry about than whether gay people get married, so I favor it unless or until evidence emerges that traditional marriage is being destroyed”? Please tell me that would work.
#14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks
#13: Bosniak is in fact the correct term for the ethnic group.
#21: Palin’s not a moron; she’s a relatively capable executive / administrator for Alaska. It’s just that, as a candidate for Vice President of the United States of America, she’s way out of her league.
She was fairly incompetent in her old job and many Alaskans think so. She can’t name a supreme court case and wants to be VP… she can’t string together coherent sentences related to the economy besides what is on her scripts and they are all terrible plans.
I still don’t get why people are voting 3rd party. At this point it’s just a wasted vote.
I’ve been out vigourously debating and consulting and generally contemplating the important issues of the day . . . and drinking, heavily. I’d like to make several points about anti-intellectualism.
1) Academics are almost uniformly anti-libertarian. Their entire job exists because of corporatists (in the philosophical sense) entitlements. However,
2) Intellectuallism in it’s purest form is great. We all love Friedman and Hayek. More traditional conservatives love WFB. But,
3) The Friedmans of the world are heavily outnumbered by the MacKinnons, Chomskeys, and Foucaults.
4) Libertarians, in general, are like conservatives in that we are less likely to get graduate degrees because, generally, we’re more concerned with making money in the real world. Don’t believe me? Tucker Carlson and Matt Welch are both college dropouts. Name two prominent liberals who dropped out to pursue more real-world careers. Now consider the number of prominent liberals compared to prominent libertarians.
5) Bobzbob, in an earlier thread, railed agianst “the oil companies” because of some standard lefty reason. For most of these people, anti-intellectualism doesn’t mean despising a both theoretical and practical understanding of the world. It only boils down to denying the most recent version of the Chosen One’s rhetoric. It’s been the same with Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Clinton and his Republican Congress were pretty great in hindsight.
6) I certainly agree that Palin is out of her league running for VP. However, if Palin is out of her league for VP, Obama is way out of his league for Pres. I’m voting for Barr, because I’m not registered in a battleground state. I’m not an Obama hater, but I can’t honestly make one good arguement for him being president. He’s made no progress on libertarian issues, so I’d defer to divided government. Being President of the Harvard Law Review only means that he was in the top (some lawyer help me out here) X % of his class. In absolutley no way does it qualify him to run a laundromat, rather or less be President.
7) If there was a legitimate libertarian politician, would you people be railing against them? I’m sure some would, because many of you are fucking idiots, but I think most would be rooting for them. I sure would. I’d be rooting for them to call the Dem a commy-sympathizer and the Rep a closet-homo. What do I care? I want my people in office. That’s what democracies are about.
8) I normally hate the “well where have you travelled” arguements because studying in Paris doesn’t teach you much about France or especially the the rest of the world. But Bobzbob’s insane idea that anti-illectualism is unique to America is especially offensive. I don’t consider myself an especially well-travelled person, but I’v been all over Mexico and Western Europe, and I think I got pretty acquainted with the former Yugoslavia when I was a soldier. If I’ve learned one thing in my travels, it’s that humans are the same
everywhere.
I would like like to continue my inane meandering, but I have to meet with some lawyer in 6 hours. Also, the Cubs still suck.
9) I should probably conclude somehow. I guess the best way would be to encourage college kids to ignore everyone but their science, math, business, and economics professors. That’s no more that 1/3rd of total classes at universities . . . so anti-intellectualism wins!
This idea that Obama is out of his league for pres is retarded.
I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic. At this point any vote for the major party candidates, in my opinion, is tantamount to treason. These men are not leaders, they are politicians. We MUST validate 3rd and 4th party candidates (by voting in large numbers for them) so we can find the LEADER this country so desperatly needs.
Kris, here are the reasons I vote third party (my particular flavor being the Libertarian, when there’s a good Libertarian option available):
1) My chances of my single vote being a determining influence on a national election are infinitesimal, so if you compare voting to nearly any other activity, ALL votes are “wasted”.
2) I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don’t want and get it. Voting is expressing a preference, not betting on a horse race.
3) My vote for a third party candidate can help their party to get on a more equal footing with the major parties: it varies by state, but a few percentage points in a statewide election can ease the unfair “bipartisan” ballot access requirements which cause third parties to spend ridiculous amounts of time and money petitioning instead of campaigning.
4) Bigger third party turnout can draw media attention and improve the chances for other voices to be heard in the media and in debates.
5) Even if a third party candidate never wins a major election, their role as a “spoiler” (as perceived by the Ds and Rs) can force the major parties to consider the agendas of the third parties. The Socialists never won a presidential election, and yet look where we are today.
“1) Academics are almost uniformly anti-libertarian. Their entire job exists because of corporatists (in the philosophical sense) entitlements.
Libertarians, in general, are like conservatives in that we are less likely to get graduate degrees because, generally, we’re more concerned with making money in the real world.”
You seem to be arguing that we should be anti-intellecual because many academics aren’t libertarian. It seems you are confusing cause and effect. Its more likely that liberalism is the result of the education, not the cause of it.
” Don’t believe me? Tucker Carlson and Matt Welch are both college dropouts.”
Making my point about anti-intellectualism. Tucker Carlson’s lightweight understanding of any issue shows everytime he is on TV.
I have travelled extensively in Asia, where education is honored, and northern and central europe where it is a central pursuit. Believe me, the anti-intellectualism in the US is a part of the social fabric unlike anywhere else in the world.
“9) I should probably conclude somehow. I guess the best way would be to encourage college kids to ignore everyone but their science, math, business, and economics professors. That’s no more that 1/3rd of total classes at universities . . . so anti-intellectualism wins!”
They should ignore everything but Philosophy, history, rhetoric and economics.
Bobzbob: The constitution has no mention in it of “separation of powers,” that is a judicial doctrine, and it isn’t even close to as exclusive as you made it sound.
The VP’s powers are Legislative, except when he takes over as President.
That said, there is no reason why the VP can’t be in both branches until something happens to the President.
Pretty much on the ball Alex. I consider myself anti-a hell of a lot of things these days. I care about the environment, but most mainstream environmentalists don’t know dick about it. I read a lot for my own edification, but what passes for intellectualism is more like cranium flatulence. I care about my country, but modern patriotism is geared toward servitude as opposed to freedom.
Most people aren’t qualified to comment or promote any current US policy, be it candidates, lobbyist, advisors, etc. And most of those people who do are extremely dangerous. We get so caught up trying to decide who the lesser evil is that we forget that voting for them just encourages them to do the same things we hate them for doing. If you want McCain/Obama to stop this madness, vote third party and send a message.
The VP’s powers are Legislative, except when he takes over as President.
If the VP is a member of the Senate, then he should be subject to the rules of the Senate regarding all manner of things. Somehow, I don’t think Messr. Cheney would be too keen on that idea.
Anti-Intellectualism is disturbing at its core, but the most educated presidents and administrations have been some of the most anti-freedom administrations. What comes to mind is Roosevelt & the brain trust, and Woodrow Wilson the PHD and Princeton president….
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Lol at “voting for these candidates is treason”. Maybe for Mccain/Palin I’d agree as they would just continue ass fucking our economy with a jack hammer and continuing a war that as a result does the same thing. But at the very least voting for Obama is a vote that will ensure that doesn’t happen. Sure Obama isn’t exactly the most libertarian choice but he is the vastly better choice given how horrible the alternative is. At the very least he cares about the deficit and is going to end the vast waste of money going toward getting killed in Iraq. Not to mention I have no real knowledge on his marijuana policies but I don’t get the idea he would use our govt money to raid dispensaries. The thing is by voting third party you aren’t enabling the third party you’re just wasting a vote that could be used on making sure the greater of the two evils: Bush 2.0 (oh wait that’s GW) doesn’t get into office. You can say your vote doesn’t matter but then that completely defeats the point of voting third party.
Not to mention the third party choices are pretty shitty anyway.
Merry Christmas to all… and to all a good night.