Debate number two was in many ways more interesting than the first… not because there was anything new discussed, but because both men* were much more relaxed.
*I wonder if there will ever be a woman… If it’s Hillary I sure won’t be voting for her.
There were a few things I found amusing during the debate.
One, Kerry once again used his lame diversion tactic when Bush called him on voting down funding for troop equipment and armor. He likes to say “Well, I made a mistake on the way I talked about it, but Bush is a liar and he’s dumb… which is worse?”
It’s an interesting tactic, and neither time has he actually explained why he voted against it. He said he didn’t want to give Halliburton a “slush fund” but he doesn’t seem to have a better idea to get the troops what they need. Good or bad, he can’t complain about troops not having what the need when he voted it down. Well, he can, but each time he does, I’m going to point out that he’s a filthy weasel.
Another priceless comment was when he talked about Clinton’s 5.6 trillion dollar surplus, versus Bush’s 2.6 trillion dollar deficit. First, Clinton was riding the dotcom boom, which raised everyone’s income and capital gains, which resulted in a higher tax base. Second, he didn’t have anything critical he was spending money on.
Now let me point out that when Kerry talks about 5.6 trillion dollar surplus… he’s not talking about the national debt. That’s what he wants you to think when he says it, but he’s trying to take our eye off the ball. Clinton taxed the American people 5.6 trillion dollars MORE than he needed to pay the bills. Think about that for a second… He taxed Americans 5.6 TRILLION dollars more than he could figure out how to spend. And he DIDN’T give it back. That means that if you take the average, he took 19,000$ more than he needed from EVERY American, man, woman, and child.
That’s not good economics, that’s just criminal. Bush has a deficit of 2.6 trillion. That means he spent more than taxes brought in. First of all, he’s spent a crapload on the war. Like it or not. But also, he’s given tax cuts to stimulate the economy; yes, a lot of the money went to the upper class (which BTW includes small businesses, s-corps) which despite Kerry’s objection, is the correct way to stimulate the economy. When you give Joe Sixpack his 300 bucks, he goes out and spends it. That’s good for the economy. When you give back millions to small business and “rich people” they can invest the money, hire people, start business, and that’s even better for the economy. If you can do both, it’s ideal.
Back to my point about the 5.6 trillion dollar surplus. It’s NOT the national debt. The national debt is roughly 7.4 trillion dollars right now. There were trillions of dollars in debt under Clinton as well. But Clinton didn’t use the money to pay OFF the debt, instead he put it in the coffers, so he could spend it when he felt like it. He didn’t send you a check, and no Democrat ever will. My point is, don’t go around thinking that under Clinton we didn’t have national debt, and under Bush we all of a sudden have 2.6 trillion in national debt. It’s two different things. The politicians know that it’s all about semantics, and they play the game well.
The truth is, Kerry will probably be able to balance the budget. He will add his 2.2 trillion dollars in spending for social programs, and then he will send you a bill. Welcome to earth.
Another topic covered was stem cell research. It’s a hotly debated topic, and that’s because it’s a moral issue, not a scientific issue. Only 8.2% of women polled had abortions because of risk to the mother or the child. The rest were for convenience factors. (Source: www.About.com) According to a 1997 Gallup Poll, most Americans would outlaw at least a majority of abortions. Only 27% of Americans thought abortion should be totally legal under all circumstances. Obviously abortion and stem-cell research are closely related. People can’t seem to connect the dots, or they justify it because the “ends justify the means.” Well, I don’t believe the “ends” ever justify the “means.” I don’t think that Iams should be torturing and killing healthy dogs to develop good dog food. I also don’t believe we should harvest embryos to develop medical cures. Nature wouldn’t put us in a box like that. Creationist or Evolutionist both would have to agree with me there. Why would nature have provided a single cure for disease that required slaughtering of other members of the species (or potential members of the species)? The answer of course is, it wouldn’t. (Note: I use the term “nature” in reference to either “mother earth” or “God” whichever you happen to think is the truth. I want everyone to see my point without getting hung up on religion.)
Legalizing stem cell research has the same ethical considerations as euthanasia. And yes, some people reading this I’m sure believe that a person has a right to die. When you begin the slippery slope, you begin to understand that once you legalize euthanasia, it’s not too much of a stretch before you have doctors making the call, and eventually the rights of the patients become irrelevant. If a person doesn’t have enough “potential” they are killed. The same applies to stem cell research. Going down that path inevitably starts us on the path of creating embryos for the sole purpose of research. While I would call this “playing God” most would say “Hey, if we can cure Parkinson’s, isn’t it worth it? I say no. There has got to be a different way to cure these diseases. Adult stem cell research is proceeding, and there is nothing to say the cures won’t be found there. Scientists are stuck on embryonic cells because they’re “easier to work with.” Well, it would be easier for society if we killed all handicapped people, and aborted all babies with birth defects. Yet, unbelievably, I don’t support that position. Sometimes “easy” is not the most important thing. In this case, it’s the least important thing.
Kerry supports partial birth abortion. Do you all know what that is? I’m going to tell you, and if you have a weak stomach, you should stop reading. Partial birth abortions are performed when the baby is ready to be delivered.
1. Baby’s leg is grabbed with forceps.
2. The leg is pulled out of the birth canal.
3. The abortionist delivers the entire baby except for the head.
4. The doctor then inserts scissors through the back of the baby’s skull and opens them to enlarge the hole.
5. A suction tube is inserted into the hole and the brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse.
6. The dead body is then removed.
Anyone that thinks a baby that’s about to be delivered should be killed, and/or doesn’t feel pain, I highly recommend that you shove scissors into the back of your skull and open them. Then get your shop vac and suck your brains out. I’d love to here the results if anyone wants to try it. Hey, if you do, I’ll buy you a lifetime Diaryland membership.
Kerry thinks this practice should be allowed, Bush does not. If I disagreed with Bush on EVERY other topic, I would still vote for him based on that subject alone. I hope you’re all smart enough not to vote Dr. Death.
There are so many more things, but I will have to cover them later, because my brain is fried. I will mark up the debate transcript and then really give you all an earfull. Until next time…