I watched the debates tonight and I agreed to write something up for my mom to send to the journal times so i figured i might as well post the important bits here - plus, this can serve as a bit of a rough draft. Both candidates said other things, but I didn't feel the need to comment on all of them, so here is what I
do have to say.
I didn't spell check this - I didn't edit this - I didn't do anything with it, I just posted it. Forgive it its many errors and probably incomplete thoughts. I'm sleepy and I don't give a shit. I figure, I put about as much time into this as Bush did the debates, so we're even.
The Military
Add Two New Divisions - One Combat - One Support
While I think adding new divisions to our standing military might be a good idea - seeing the way we've been stretched here, adding a new division will not alleviate the problem in this case. It isn't that we don't have enough places to put these boys that are volunteering - its that we don't have enough boys volunteering.
Double Our Special Forces So That We Can Fight Wars More Effectively
Absolutely. Increasing stealth operations and better training our existing military for tasks that involve more than point and shoot is an excellent idea becuase it can do so much to improve the very nature of warfare, but perhaps we should take that further and examine other ways we can make war more "efficient." Were a company to bring in a consultant, they would say two things. One: Cut down on your need for manpower - find other ways to do it. Two: Do the preventative maintence and don't do trite or unneccisary things. Change the language a bit - and its not bad advice for our future President, whomever it may be.
The Morale In Our Armed Forces Is Fine
Excuse me? You've got boys refusing to go back when their turn comes up again because they don't believe in it - you've got boys over there who are fighting it but don't believe in it. These men and women are not stupid - they know that this isn't right and they're saying it. I saw a clip of a solider in Iraq one day, pointing out to a reporter that the Iraqi citizens wouldn't have their country back until we were out of it. They know the score. We know the score. You're the only one who needs to drop your delusions - and rapidly before you get anyone else killed.
The boys who do come home, defending the cause, either have already or will at some point come to realize, or repress, the inevitable truth that the only reason they cling to the notion of this war being for the good of the world is that they'd face utter psychological destruction were they ever to consider, even for the breifest moment, that the people they killed died for no good reason.
And then, on both fronts, there was discussion of the typical question on which I am still unresolved. I hestitate to say that "it's complicated" for fear of confusing Mr. Bush. The fact is, this war is a complicated matter and any future wars will be the same. No, we need not require international approval before entering into something that is right - but what we do need to do is to ensure that what we're doing is right. You see, before entering into a battle like this and invading the soverignty of another country, you have to make sure that what you're doing is right...you need
proof and all we were given were guesses, none of which turned out to be good ones. However, the lack of international approval here and the UN's refusal to partake should have been an indication to us of the nature of our deeds. There is no reason we could not have waited for the weapons inspections and solid evidence, or even
some evidence.
Gun Control
Assault Rifles Aren't For Killing Deer
This is a matter close to home as my father is a bit of a gun nut - and an irresponsible one at that. We've had many a debate over guns. While I do not see the purpose of hunting, I do understand that many people find it enjoyable and it is widely accepted as a viable sport. Okay, I'll let it go. Defense of the home is the other commonly used explaination for the continuance of gun ownership in this country. On that matter, I'd like to make a point. Only under the circumstances when an intruder is a direct threat to your
person, not your property, are you permitted to use deadly force. A gun is deadly force. 9 times out of 10, your gun will be useless in the event of a break-in, because you're not permitted, in a civilized society, to kill someone for stealing your stereo. But, again, i'll let it go.
AK-47's and M-16's are an entirely different matter. Kudos to you, John Kerry, for realizing that. They have no rational purpose outside of massacre.
The Solution To Gun's In This Country Is To Prosecute More Heavily For Gun Crimes
Gun crimes should be prosecuted. I absolutely believe that, but lets prevent some of them. Let's take the assault rifles away and keep
some of these things from happening before they do.
I'd also like to reference another point that Bush made in his speaches. When asked what he would say to the Catholic parishoners being told that it is a sin to vote John Kerry because he will not put a stop to stem cell research or abortion, George Bush launched into a discussion of "promote[ing] a culture of life" where all lives have value. Does not the life of the person murdered have a value? I am certain he feels that it does as he is vehement that the criminals be punished. If he feels that punishment is adequate - lets just let abortion clinics remain open and operational and we'll just throw the women in jail when they come out. Sound good? I thought not.
John Kerry may change his mind over his senate career, but Bush can't keep his views consistent across the board for a whole hour and a half.
Do You Believe That Homosexuality Is A Choice?
I Believe Marriage Is Between A Man & A Woman, But One Should Not Legislate Their Personal Views - You Are Who You Are. I Respect That. - and - We're All God's Children.
Congratulations, John Kerry! You recognize that you believe that Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but you also believe that in the United States of America, a person is permitted to be who they are so long as it does not impeed the safety of another human being. You realize that people don't simply proclaim homosexuality to piss the Catholics off and you also believe that your own religious affiliation states that while a true Christian should go forth and proclaim the word of the gospel, the Spanish Inquistion was a bad idea.
Later, when asked a different question, John Kerry said this: "Respect is faith." I think that applies here as well.
"I don't know." - People Should Be Permitted To Live The Way They Want To Live, Unless It Conflicts With My Definition Of Marriage
George, we all know perfectly well how you feel about homosexuality. Just come out and admit that you
do believe it is a choice. At least, I'd hope that's what you think, because the other option is that you simply believe that the GLBT community is made up of inferior human beings, and that sounds strikingly like something another man I know said. His name was Hitler. Yeah, look how that turned out.
I didn't catch the exact quotes, but he completed one sentance that boiled down to live and let live, and within two breaths he'd stated that permitting gay people to marry was unneccessary. One or the other George - you can't have both. You cannot state that you believe people should be permitted to live as they want to live but qualify it with "...unless they're gay and want to get married..." It's a contradiction and just plain unfair.
Mind you - I think the government needs to get out of the marrige business as it is a religious institution. It's like bieng gay and Catholic. You can't. It's just not possible. You can't be catholic except that part about you liking to sleep with members of the same sex, Catholocism doesn't allow it. Since this part is about something entirely of my own opinion with no real bearing on fact, law or anything but my own meandering expereince, i'll say this: Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, but neither should straight people - not in a governmental capacity anyway. Call it something else and then sign everybody up - but the seperation of chruch and state shouldn't be allowing this.
Paraphrased: "The problem is that we have judges defining marriage"
Marriage - at this point - is a part of our Law. The purpose of a the judicial branch of our grovernment to interpret law. That means intepreting the marriage laws as well - and defining marriage falls under that category.
Put down the Bible and pick up a copy of the Constitution.
How Would You Respond To The Catholics Saying That It Would Be A Sin To Vote For John Kerry Because Of His Stance On Stem Cell Research And Abortion? & Would You Reverse Roe Vs. Wade?
While I Respect Their Views, I Disagree - I'm Not Running A Catholic Running For President, I'm Running For President And I Happen To Be Catholic.
John Kerry is a Catholic. He does not believe that abortions are moral but he
does believe that it is not his right to legislate his "article of faith."
He has also stated many a time that he would not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that would reverse Roe Vs. Wade and that just makes me want to say "Thank You."
Promote Adoption And Make The Adoption Laws Easier To Work With - Promote Abstience Training - Create More "Maternity Homes"
The first one is a chuckle, the second one is a guffaw, and the third one is out-right offensive. Adoption is a viable option for some women, and certianly, if you consider it something you could do, please put the child up for adoption instead of aborting it, but sometimes it simply isn't possible. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this subject for my personal life. To this day I'm not entirely sure I could go through with an abortion but I know that I have even stronger personal feelings about giving a child up for adoption, as strange as it sounds. My overwhelming impulse is that in the event I ever got pregnant I'd probably keep the child and find a way to raise it, because I don't think I could go through with either option, but that's me. There are women on this planet I wouldn't trust with a hard-boiled egg - let alone a baby, and many of them could never give a child up for adoption after they held it in their arms. In those cases, I think its better for the baby to be aborted. What about children wtih congenital defects - why put a family through pregnancy and childbirth to yeild a baby that never had a chance at living? God forbid, but what about women who are raped? Would you force them to carry a pregancy, go through that process, birth the child, and then either give it up or keep it - in any case, living with a constant reminder of that horrific event?
Abstinence is many things - but a substitute for abortion it is not. Abstience until marriage simply isn't realistic or even neccessary. Very few people abstain from sex until marriage. I didn't. I never intended to. What needs to be taught is not "sex is bad - run away kids, run away!" but instead, "sex is part of life - but its something you shouldn't rush yourself into - you will come to it when you feel ready for it. Ready for it means more than just an emotion - it means you're ready to take all precautions, practice safe sex to protect yourself against not only pregnancy but disease as well."
Maternity Homes? Pardon my language, but FUCK YOU! What is this - the little girl was bad so you ship her off to boarding school? Are you out of your mind? Pregnant women, and teens (as much as the concept bothers me,) aren't to be shipped off to some island where they can live in shame. People "make mistakes" people do things they later wish they had done a different way, but at no point should a child be a regret and the government certainly doesn't need to help perpetuate the stigma by shoving unwed mothers into homes. I'm 19, if I got pregnant tomorrow, I'd cry my eyes out. I'd be depressed, sullen, melencholy, and terrified, but I wouldn't want to be hidden, and I wouldn't be ashamed. I'd greive the loss of my youth but never the concept of bringing a new life into the world.
If you want to offer assistence to young or unwed mothers - fine, but find a different way to do it.
Health Care and Social Security
John Kerry's Plan
This fell into a big puddle of questionable and rolled around for a bit. He plans to let us buy into the senators plans. He plans to take the children off of the states hands in exchange for them covering adults up to 300% above the poverty line. (I think i may have musunderstood him on that one) This seems - sketchy. It's a good idea, but isn't this going to cost loads of money and aren't we going to pay for that with taxes? Yeah...we are...So where are we going to get that money? Oh, from the tax cut repeal...Okay. Wait a minute...you said that was going to pay for the Social Security just a minute ago...
Yes, we had a little bit of a discrepancy there, Mr. Kerry. Quite frankly - neither of them have solid health plans or solutions to social security. Bush's idea flat out won't work and Kerry's is going to be hella expensive...plus, it reeks of socialized medicine and we all know how I feel about that.
I also noticed a lot of evasion when it came to answering these questions - a lot of turning to other topics and shuffling of feet and eyes. Not good. Not making me feel real confident here guys..
Taxes
I should warn you - my interest is starting to peter out, so there will be less and less detail and fervor as pass along...
George Bush said "If you pay any taxes at all, you got tax relief." Untrue - Mike got none. Am sure there are more like him.
Kerry claims that if we roll back the tax cuts and close the loophole, we'll be fine, but he double appropriated money even in tonights debate.
Job Loss
Let me just say that John Kerry started this off with an uninspiring "Uh...." and then moved to fiscal responsiblity, but thats okay, because ti wasn't a total loss, Bush swooped in with an even more uninspiring speech about his wonderful work wtih the education system. He cited Pell Grants - saying they had more going out than ever before. John Kerry countered him by pointing out that the only reason there are more going out is becasue more people are lower income and they didn't actually increase the funding - they just give out smaller awards.
George Bush believes that furthering education will stem job loss - but I contend that the jobs we're losing didn't require too much education, and the jobs we're creating, for the most part, don't require too much either. Look aruond my town. Any new IT companies open up and hiring? Nope. But there sure are a lot of positions open for retail, sales, and secretaries. And they all pay 5.15 an hour! Yeah...
Which brings me to the Minimum Wage increase. Bush thinks that furthering education will be enough. The fact of the matter ist hat education is irrelevent in the subject of minimum wage. The purpose of the minimum wage is so that one person could afford the bare necessities of life on it. Right now, its 5.15. I did the math - I could barely scrape by on $10 an hour with rent, groceries, car/health insurance, gas, and utilities. And John Kerry only wants to raise it to $7.
A few of my favorite moments from this evening
- Bush lying about the press conference in which he said (Paraphrased) "I don't know where he [Osama] is. To tell you the truth, I don't think about him all that often" He claims he never said it.
- Bush claiming that he was saving social security when really, he's just creating a different program and letting social security die.
- All 400 times Kerry changed the subject
- "Only a senator from Massechusetts would say that a 49% increase isn't enough." Which Kerry countered with the perfectly valid point of "It isn't about funding and percentages - its about results."
- George Bush's response to the question "What is the most important thing you ever learned from the strong women in your life": Listen to 'em, stand up straight and don't scowl. It was the only thing of real content he said there. John Kerry's response: Integrity...Integrity...Integrity. Who wins? I KNOW!
- The chuckle and sly "God thats a great mental image" look Bush got on his face when Kerry mentioned that the women in his life kick him around.
- George W Bush: "God I sure hope its not the administration" - Addressing the topic of rising health insurance costs and who is to blame.
- John Kerryl ikening himself to FDR - twice. That was funny :P
- And this last bit, which must have been a joke, where Bush actually asserted that the VA is perfectly well funded and that the US Government is taking excellent care of its veterans.
