Ionphore
10-01-2004, 02:17 PM
Debating is an artform...
Kerry has been in the senate for 20 years and also debated alot in college and also post vietnam war often times as well on national tv, when debating on national tv was actually still often done in a sensible respectable way.
Bush doesen't have nearly as much experience in debating clearly, so you wouldn't expect him to be as convincing, use words as well, or as persausive. This came across in my mind pretty clearly.
I thought bush had 1 good rebuttle, the one that started off when he mentioned Tony Blair. That was his one good uppercut. But Kerry was clearly jabbing left and right, picking his spots, using the right wordage, varying his message, not some monotonous repetitive tone. Bush got his message across, but it is the same message he has been getting across for awhile now. His message seems pretty clear, that we need a leader like him because there is danger. He will protect us from this danger. That is such a fallacy, and anyone who buys into this would have likely bought into Hitler as well. Hitler ruled by fear. I realize bringing up Hitler can be taken in many ways, but its purely an example to prove that leading by fear often brings poor results. All countries led by fear have ended up being overthrown, having revolutions, etc...
Obviously bush is no hitler, but this is the same thing reagan did in 1980. Does anyone remember, there were tanks surrounding the whitehouse, the propaganda at that time was that south american terrorists were everywhere in the US and were trying "to steal our freedom". Its so silly when ever Bush says freedom hating, or evil doers. This is all perception. Does he beleive that saying terrorists hate freedom will make us think, "Oh they hate freedom, I love freedom, therefore they hate me, therefore I must vote for bush because Kerry isn't saying the same thing, therefore he must hate freedom too and love terrorists". I mean seriously this is the underlying subconcious message. And guess what, It works. Bush caters to the lowest common denominator of society, which is largely the uneducated and the ederly. These demographics are easy to control by fear. All he has to do is get some votes from other demographics and he will be elected. Noam chomsky was at a debate at a college. When a student asked him about the war in Iraq. The student asked:
Mr chomsky, we realize we may have been misled as to why we went to war in Iraq, but isn't the world better off without Sadam Hussein?
To which chomsky replied:
Yes, but why don't we just be honest about what we are trying to do. That we just see something we want, [oil, control of the middle east] and we take it or change it. And that is exactly what brutal regiems of the past have done.
Another important thing everyone seems to forget. In the early 1990's when Sadam used WMD's on his own people, as the republicans always like to quote as to describe what a horrible person he is. He did it with our weapons and our support. With our support. We wanted him to stay in power at the end of the first war. It was in our best interests, we turned a blind eye to the genocide. Another important point. If you want to know the number 1 terrorist country in the world. Doesen't take too long to figure out who, yes, its US. (pun intended)
This post is merely rambling because I am at work. I just think a half intelligent person can browse the internet for a day and make an informed voting decision, and an informed decision would not be for Bush. An informed vote would be for Kerry, the lesser of two evils.
Kerry has been in the senate for 20 years and also debated alot in college and also post vietnam war often times as well on national tv, when debating on national tv was actually still often done in a sensible respectable way.
Bush doesen't have nearly as much experience in debating clearly, so you wouldn't expect him to be as convincing, use words as well, or as persausive. This came across in my mind pretty clearly.
I thought bush had 1 good rebuttle, the one that started off when he mentioned Tony Blair. That was his one good uppercut. But Kerry was clearly jabbing left and right, picking his spots, using the right wordage, varying his message, not some monotonous repetitive tone. Bush got his message across, but it is the same message he has been getting across for awhile now. His message seems pretty clear, that we need a leader like him because there is danger. He will protect us from this danger. That is such a fallacy, and anyone who buys into this would have likely bought into Hitler as well. Hitler ruled by fear. I realize bringing up Hitler can be taken in many ways, but its purely an example to prove that leading by fear often brings poor results. All countries led by fear have ended up being overthrown, having revolutions, etc...
Obviously bush is no hitler, but this is the same thing reagan did in 1980. Does anyone remember, there were tanks surrounding the whitehouse, the propaganda at that time was that south american terrorists were everywhere in the US and were trying "to steal our freedom". Its so silly when ever Bush says freedom hating, or evil doers. This is all perception. Does he beleive that saying terrorists hate freedom will make us think, "Oh they hate freedom, I love freedom, therefore they hate me, therefore I must vote for bush because Kerry isn't saying the same thing, therefore he must hate freedom too and love terrorists". I mean seriously this is the underlying subconcious message. And guess what, It works. Bush caters to the lowest common denominator of society, which is largely the uneducated and the ederly. These demographics are easy to control by fear. All he has to do is get some votes from other demographics and he will be elected. Noam chomsky was at a debate at a college. When a student asked him about the war in Iraq. The student asked:
Mr chomsky, we realize we may have been misled as to why we went to war in Iraq, but isn't the world better off without Sadam Hussein?
To which chomsky replied:
Yes, but why don't we just be honest about what we are trying to do. That we just see something we want, [oil, control of the middle east] and we take it or change it. And that is exactly what brutal regiems of the past have done.
Another important thing everyone seems to forget. In the early 1990's when Sadam used WMD's on his own people, as the republicans always like to quote as to describe what a horrible person he is. He did it with our weapons and our support. With our support. We wanted him to stay in power at the end of the first war. It was in our best interests, we turned a blind eye to the genocide. Another important point. If you want to know the number 1 terrorist country in the world. Doesen't take too long to figure out who, yes, its US. (pun intended)
This post is merely rambling because I am at work. I just think a half intelligent person can browse the internet for a day and make an informed voting decision, and an informed decision would not be for Bush. An informed vote would be for Kerry, the lesser of two evils.