Debate Debacle

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: 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…

  34 comments for “Debate Debacle

  1. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Incredipete I think most protestants support the death penalty. Certainly in every church I’ve attended, which cuts across several denominations.

  2. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: BigpimpinMBA Sorry… Should have said Christian, not Catholic.

  3. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Incredipete I’m actually not Catholic, I’m Methodist. I am pro death penalty because I believe people that do harm to another person deserve to pay for their crimes. Sticking them in a prison cell with cable TV and weightrooms is not good enough punishment for some criminals. No unborn baby has ever decided to harm another human being. They are silent victims. If being conceived by a mother that doesn’t want her, makes her punishable by death, than maybe we should consider implementing due process for the unborn. Even serial killers get a defense and a trial. The mother’s womb is supposed to be the safest place in the world for a new baby, and instead, it’s one of the most dangerous. I’d be willing to get rid of the death penalty if it meant abortion was made illegal.

  4. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Bigpimp I’m with Wen on this one… That’s why I said anti-abortion and I’m anti-death penalty, but to a lesser extent than I’m anti-abortion. However, as Incredipete pointed out, assuming that the person on death row has been rightly convicted, then that person has made their own decisions knowing full-well that what they were doing was punishable in some way, perhaps even by death. I’m actually kind of surprised by Incredipete being pro-death penalty, since he’s seems to be a Catholic and the Church is against the death penalty. As he said, murder is murder.

  5. Wen
    November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Wen Actually I did not say a woman should be able to kill her baby if society is allowed to kill criminals. Please go back and read my question again.

  6. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Incredipete Some people think it’s okay to commit terrible crimes. That’s their opinion. Maybe I should respect it.

  7. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Incredipete I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that if you approach this as a woman’s rights issue, then yes, abortion should be legal. But if you approach it from a moral standpoint, then it shouldn’t. People decided that they wanted the option to kill their baby, so they have tried to come up with endless justifications for why it’s ok. For once, I’d like to hear a liberal woman (or a man trying not to offend a liberal woman) say “Yup, I know it’s a baby, and you know what, I don’t give a damn. I’m gonna kill it anyway.” At least I could respect that they were owning up to reality.

  8. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Incredipete I guess the gist of it is, is there any difference, as far as the baby goes, whether it is an inconvenience, or it is a result of rape or incest? You can’t split hairs like that. If it’s a baby, then it’s always a baby, regardless of circumstances, and thus it is murder to kill it. If it is not a baby, then by all means it is ok to kill it under ANY circumstance. You can’t use the viability argument either, because 20 years ago a “fetus” was only viable after about 34 weeks, and now a “fetus” can survive and be totally healthy when it’s born at 24 weeks. In another 20 years, maybe it will be 14 weeks. It’s a baby, no matter how much you want to convince yourself otherwise. I don’t understand how anyone could have an abortion after they have seen a picture of a 12 week along baby sucking its thumb. Get real.

  9. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Incredipete Obviously, we have free will, since millions of babies are aborted each year. If we didn’t have free will, God would go “Shazaam” and no one would be able to have another abortion. God outlines in the Bible what cases are appropriate for the death penalty, so actually, it’s more like God is playing God. But you say women should be able to kill her baby, but society can’t execute it’s criminals… what gives? That argument doesn’t hold water in the logical sense any more than any other opinion.

  10. Wen
    November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Wen There has been a few quotes here about “playing God”, which I find interesting on many levels. The question I’m having trouble wrapping my brain around is this:

  11. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: warcrygirl I consider myself a “lazy” Christian because I believe every woman must make her own decision yet abortion is not an option for me. But then again I don’t really like telling other people how to live their life even when that lifestyle/choice is one I don’t approve of.

  12. maf
    November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: maf just because we don’t argue or debate doesn’t mean we agree. it might just mean we respect the rights of people to have all kinds of opinions.

  13. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Walker Okay, HRT, I’ll be more than happy to stand up for a “woman’s right to choose”. It is after all something I feel very passionately about.

  14. HRT
    November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: HRT Hmmm this debate seems a bit one sided. Isn’t ANYbody going to stand up for a “woman’s right to choose”?

  15. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: your incredibly adorabe little sister women who were raped or were victims of incest who gave birth to their babies: “Of those giving an opinion, 94 percent of rape victims and 100 percent of incest victims said abortion was not a good option for other women in their situation” women in the same situation who aborted their babies: “Of those giving an opinion, more than 90 percent said they would discourage other victims of sexual violence from having an abortion.”

  16. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Incredipete I quoted that statistic to make a point, as HRT pointed out. However, I believe that it is morally wrong 100% of the time, including in cases of rape and incest. Since when did 2 wrongs make a right? In the case where there is a threat to the mother, it becomes a more sticky wicket, because at that point you’re playing God, choosing which person lives or dies. I would prefer to leave it up to God (or “nature” if you prefer) than have human beings make the decision. And HRT, the reason women agonize over the decision is that deep down inside, they know that it’s wrong. How could you have a baby inside of you, and not know that it’s a baby? I don’t think you can.

  17. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Walker So then is it okay for a woman to have an abortion, no matter what stage of pregnancey, if it’s a risk to her life to continue to carry the child? It seems that the greatest sacrafice a person could make is for their child. Do you really give your childs life to save your own? Or do you give your’s, out of love and respect for the human being inside of you?

  18. HRT
    November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: HRT Wen, I think he did, when he correctly quoted the statistic that fewer than 10% of all abortions performed are for any of those reasons. And if Sir Incredipete-a-lot, didn’t I just did.

  19. Wen
    November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Wen How do you address the instances or rape or physical threat to the mother’s life?

  20. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: warcrygirl What about the frozen embryos that infertile couples no longer need? My best friend just watched Michael Moore’s crap and now he’s all bashing on Bush. Apparently, Moore has linked Bush to the Bin Laden’s and has suggested (from what I got from my friend) that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen because he was business partners with them.

  21. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Incredipete I also want to address something before some raging woman brings it up. Abortion is an issue for both men and women. It’s not a women’s rights issue… it’s a moral issue. If we were talking about a woman’s right to choose a boob job, ok, maybe. But this is not the woman’s body, it’s the baby’s body we’re talking about. Everyone should get a say in this topic.

  22. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Incredipete Yes, stem cells are actually harvested from embryos. Believe it or not.

  23. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: warcrygirl Isn’t stem cell research using the cells from the umbilical cords of full term babies? I tried to donate mine from both births but in order for me to do so I’d have to drive all the way to Duke to deliver. They refused to drive to me to pick up the cord and you only have so many hours (12, I think) before you can’t use them.

  24. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Bigpimpinmba Well written. Well said.

  25. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Human Resources Dear Mr. Kerry:

  26. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am


  27. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Kalisa Yeah, partial birth abortions are pretty cruel. While I don’t personally like any type of abortion, I really don’t think it’s ANY of my business if people abort their babies. If a mother is really so cold she wants her unborn child destroyed in her womb, she’d find some way to kill it, with or without abortion. Or she might let it live and then abuse it. The majority of abortions happen because dumb, lazy bitches who are too fucking retarded to use birth control. Unfortunately, our culture is not very good at instilling the value of responibility in people.

  28. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: your incredibly adorable little sister partial birth abortion is horrible, but the other types of abortion are just as horrible. Whether it’s cutting the baby up during the first trimester and pulling the pieces out, inserting a saline solution to burn and shrivel the baby’s skin and suffocate the baby, or pulling/sucking the limbs of the baby off with forceps or a suction tube and crushing the skull, it’s all just terrible. I’m bitter. and that’s why i’d vote for Bush. Poor babies. The economy doesn’t matter nearly as much to me as the babies. *bitter*

  29. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: warcrygirl Clinton had a Republican Congress. Hubby says Clinton didn’t apply the surplus towards the National Debt because Congress wouldn’t allow him to do so. But, Hubby and I fully agree with your assessment. Hubby hates Bush but will NOT vote for Kerry.

  30. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Wendy Okay…

  31. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Teets again Wow. Check that out! I really am first. Incredipete, you are right about partial birth abortion and as a woman who has carried a child and given birth, I can tell you that I have no idea how any woman in their right mind could possibly allow someone to deliver their baby and then murder him or her. Every woman who has carried a child knows the living, growing, human being inside them is a human life, not just “tissue”. By the time you are in late pregnancy, there’s no denying that this is a little person inside you. I find it utterly ridiculous that if you murder the child while his head is inside his mother it is a medical procedure, but if his head comes out of the mother and then you viciously murder him, you’ve committed a crime. Ridiculous. It’s every bit as stupid as the story about the emperor and his new clothes. Everybody knew dude was naked, but they ignored reality and went right on. Much like people are ignoring the reality that babies are being murdered and their murder is rationalized by the crazy notion that their head being inside their mother makes them somehow not a person yet.

  32. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Incredipete So true. If I hear the “It’s my body” argument one more time, I’m probably gonna go postal. It’s not “your body” it’s the “baby’s body” dumbass!

  33. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Walker It’s amazing the things that some people would want to allow to happen. There’s so much talk, on almost every side of things, about wanting to protect our children, yet, someone like Kerry says it’s okay to just go ahead and kill them.

  34. November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

    AUTHOR: Teets What? I’m first? Did the rapture happen and I got left?

Comments are closed.