Weak God

This guy lays down some of the weakest arguments regarding God that I've ever seen.

He (God) can't get over the claim by the blasphemers that man is a million years old. "Look at me," He said, "I'm 10,000 years old, and just barely hanging on. Can you imagine what a million-year-old would look like? There'd be nothing left but dust."

Barely hanging on? Not exactly a vision of omnipotence. And apparently, lacking the intelligence to understand the difference between "humankind" and "a man". Also, clearly an invention of humans, given that humankind has been around a good bit longer than 10,000 years.

He (God) was also deeply hurt by their idea that man just came along willy-nilly, everything left to chance. He pointed to the variety of people all over the world. "How would it be possible for an Eskimo to 'evolve' into an English Lord, or a Sunni Muslim into a Southern Baptist?

What moron ever made those claims? A severe misunderstanding of the fundamental claims of evolution is clearly at work here.

"Look, I made some mistakes," he (God) said, "like the avocado pits being too big, and all that salt-water in the oceans. But the biggest was giving man too big a brain."

Well, then, I'm certainly convinced to revere this god's omniscience; what with all the accidental salt in the oceans and the mishap of creating a being whose intelligence is threatening to its creator.

"I'm being challenged by every smart-mouth community college science major, two-bit atheist, and self-appointed constitutional lawyer saying there is no creation."

A truly omniscient, omnipotent god shouldn't be fearful, or even slightly annoyed, at the thought of being challenged by his creation. I would think it flattering to have created a being so intelligent that it questions its creator. It should certainly not be cause for concern to an omniscient and omnipotent being.

"If I hear of one more letter from these crack-pots about keeping my holy word out of the Dover classrooms I'm going to smite them with a thunder-bolt."

Dear god: please instruct your followers to keep your holy word out of the Dover classrooms.

~waiting~ No smoting thunderbolts. Interesting.

...with Liberty and Justice for Christians

A Christian can't be both Christian and Liberal

...he would be more restricted than Bill when Hillary's in town.

Let's dissect this for a moment. Bill is restricted when Hillary is in town; sexually speaking, I'm assuming. When Hillary is in town, Bill's philandering must come to a halt. Because Hillary is an overbearing harpy? No, because she's his wife -- who has a certain say in these things, as all S.O.'s do. So, the message is that the husband (Bill) can't play around and get his winky whacked by someone other than his wife when his wife (Hillary) is around. But the tone of the statement. Oh, the tone. It's as if every husband should resent his wife for not allowing him to indulge, with someone else, every sexual urge he may have. Not a very respectful sentiment, especially coming from someone who professes to be a Christian conservative espousing the values of the traditional family. Or maybe I've misunderstood the values of the traditional family. Perhaps it really does mean that the man is in charge, gets to lie and cheat, and the woman stays home to cook and clean and raise the kids and take the philandering with a nice big smile.

Yes, if the Christophobic thugs had it their way, Christians would be relegated to a marginalized spiritual ghetto on the sidelines of life.

Hey, that's me! He's talking about me! What a grand feeling it is to have my views acknowledged! *ahem* Yes, right then. Moving along.

For the naïve Christian voter who thinks he can toss a ballot in the Nuevo (wouldn't nouveau be more fitting here? I mean, sure, they both mean the same thing, but isn't it the French we really hate?) liberal direction, please know that a vote toward the secular left could leave you bereft of sacred liberties.

For example? No more writ of habeas corpus. No more attorney-client privilege. No more requirement for probable cause. No more privacy. Oh, wait...those are the liberties that were lost when a nut-job Reich Wing administration took over. Let's see which liberties are the "sacred" ones we can't afford to lose under liberal lawmakers.

1. Christianity to be scrubbed from government and whatever turf the government owns.

Actually, there is no right to have Christianity chiseled into American government. What he's implying (that government bear the stamp of Christianity) doesn't describe liberty, it describes theocracy.

2. Secularism to be continually mainlined into our public school system.

In as much as it's a PUBLIC school system and not a parochial one, secularism is entirely apropos. Once again, more sentimental of theocracy than liberty.

3. Public officials, employees and appointees to be pressured to hide their faith in the closet and suppress their public displays of belief in God lest they be grouped with Hitler, Osama, or Mussolini and then fired.

That actually would be a loss of liberty. Of course, it's pure crap. No one is (or would be) required to suppress their public displays of belief except when said belief begins to influence policy. In other words, believe what you want and behave accordingly, just don't try to force others to do the same. As to lumping people in with totalitarians and extremists, it seems that's a page right out of the conservative play book a la Saxby Chambliss vs. Max Cleland.

4. Public attacks on churches and Christians and attempts to restrict them in the private sector.

WTF? Which part of left field (oh, sorry...I guess that would be right field) did this come from? Just another staple of the Conservative Reich: fear mongering.

5. The continued media endorsement of the same putrid hedonistic stuff that sunk ancient Rome. Yes, with the liberals in place, expect more weird crap in movies and on television.

Since when does the election of liberals have any direct link to the preferences of Hollywood producers? Besides...weird crap is what movies and television are all about! Just ask Mel Gibson.

Expect to see more paintings of Christian symbols/ saints smeared with elephant dung.

Yeah, baby! Sorry. To paraphrase Larry Flynt, "The first amendment doesn't protect the speech we love, it protects the speech we hate". Just another liberty that this nut-job would repeal under a Christian theocracy.

Expect Christianity to be bashed and vilified and Christians made out to be buckled-shoed morons with three teeth and an IQ of 50.

You mean they're not?! =)

Expect your kids to continue to be exposed to things that only rock stars see backstage with groupies.

Now wait just a gall-darn minute! Christian kids shouldn't be exposed to things that only rock stars see backstage with groupies! We all should be exposed to what only rock stars see backstage with groupies!

My ClashPoint is this: Modern liberalism tosses the scripture out on several different levels.

Heh-heh...so did Jesus, you nut. He threw out the scripture of his day. In fact, he was the modern liberal of his day. I guess only liberals who are a couple of millennia behind our time warrant any respect.

Secular liberalism's aggressive desire to eradicate Christians' rights should cause Christians to be concerned.

I think he means Christian's perceived rights. True progressives and liberals fight for the rights of all, which is why conservatives and liberals often butt heads. Liberals aim to defend the rights of those whose are trampled by Christians. Christians don't have the right to be the sole religion. Christians don't have the right to force their morality on everyone through legislative fiat. Christians don't have the right to preferential treatment.

Dobson on Gay Marriage

Dobson: Elect Fundie Bonk-jobs!

I can't believe anyone takes him seriously.

"Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage," Dobson said.

Yes. Wow. Clearly, there is a mountain of evidence supporting that claim. The destruction of marriage -- not equal rights and protection -- is the motivation for homosexuals. Also, they do not intend to raise families, they only wish to harvest children to be eaten in ritual homosexual ceremonies.

"It (homosexual marriage) will destroy the Earth."

Actually, I think pollution has a better shot at it.

Almost Getting It

One X Commandments supporter almost gets it:

Seeing only the Protestant version on public display makes me feel that I am to some extent a second-class citizen because I am Catholic rather than Protestant.

Now he just needs to imagine how a person who isn't Christian at all could feel like a second class citizen with any version of the X Commandments posted and he'll fully understand the issue.

Liberalism for Christians

Wasn't Jesus a Liberal?

Liberalism as defined by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary: “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life…”

I am not sure why anyone would feel threatened by Liberalism as defined by the dictionary. They are apparently unaware or simply refuse to acknowledge the long history of liberals who have labored for the betterment of society and the furthering of God’s Kingdom.

Umm...isn't religion a form of arbitrary authority? Oh well...still a good article to send to my staunchly (and not so staunchly) conservative Christian friends and family.

Jesus was the ultimate liberal progressive revolutionary of all history. The conservative religious and social structure that He defied hated and crucified Him. They examined His life and did not like what they saw. He aligned Himself with the poor and the oppressed. He challenged the religious orthodoxy of His day. He advocated pacifism and loving our enemies. He liberated women and minorities from oppression. He healed on the Sabbath and forgave adulterers and prostitutes. He associated with drunks and other social outcasts.

Wait...since when are drunks considered social outcasts? They're usually the life of the party! =D

Comments on the final debate

Third presidential debate. Or, "The First Presidential Debate, Part Deux, Redone". Not much new with this one. Both sides pretty much rehashing the same issues and even regurgitating, word for word, the same tired sound bites. But there were a few new tidbits.

Bush: My opponent just this weekend talked about how terrorism could be reduced to a nuisance, comparing it to prostitution, illegal gambling. I think that attitude and that point of view is dangerous.

Yeah, wow. It's damn dangerous to have a vision of defeating terrorism so thoroughly that it is relegated to a problem as benign as prostitution. Much better that we elect a leader who will insure that we never succeed, thereby remaining embroiled in endless battles and the American people remain scared shitless for an indefinite period of time so that Reich Wing extremists can continue to strip us of our liberty! That's really the better plan.

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

Um, let's see here. Where's that quote. Oh yeah: "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 And: "I am truly not that concerned about him."- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02. Boy, that John Kerry. I tell ya. He sure does exaggerate!

Bush: Got four more years, I've got more to do to continue to raise standards, to continue to reward teachers and school districts that are working, to emphasize math and science in the classrooms...

Why would Bush emphasize science in the classrooms when he doesn't even emphasize it in his own administration? Global warming? Bah! Stem cell research? Pshaw!

Bush: I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman.

I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage...

"Defining the definition"? Okay, I'm picking nits. But why is it okay for Bush to define marriage (man-woman), but not for anyone else, in this case judges?

KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob.

That's it! I'm not voting for Kerry! Just kidding.

Kerry: The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

You fool!

Kerry: But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that...you can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.

Well, at least he's acknowledging that he can't force his beliefs on others and discriminate against homosexuals.

Kerry: There's a great passage of the Bible that says, What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.

Kerry fires the first salvo in the Scripture-quotin' smackdown.

Bush: My opponent, in that he's out of the mainstream, voted against that law (to ban "partial birth" abortions).

Judas Priest! Bush and Kerry both basically agree on the social issues of abortion and gay marriage. Why is Bush so frantic to separate himself in EVERY possible way from Kerry? He's even afraid to be seen as similar to Kerry on the things on which they both agree! I wish Bush would quit pandering to his extremist base of Bonk Jobs! Those are the people who are truly out of the mainstream!

Bush: The last debate, my opponent said his wife was involved with those programs (of getting children adopted). That's great. I appreciate that very much.

Finally, some level of acknowledgement that they agree. The ONLY difference between Bush and Kerry on this subject (and it's subtle, but very important) is that, while neither supports abortion, Kerry realizes that it's not his or the governments decision to make; whereas, Bush seems to find himself the supreme ruler of morality and would impose his will on the world.

Bush: I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don't get in the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

That's nice to hear. Although it would be nicer for Bush to stand up to the NRA and actually do something so that all gun purchases require a background check.

Bush: I tell the people on the campaign trail, when I asked Laura to marry me, she said, Fine, just so long as I never have to give a speech. I said, OK, you've got a deal. Fortunately, she didn't hold me to that deal. And she's out campaigning along with our girls. And she speaks English a lot better than I do.

Oh boy! An open door! I'm sorry, I just can't resist...most six year olds speak better English than Bush does!

Abortions Unavailable to Women in the Military

This is messed up!

The military, and many service members themselves, offer many counterarguments, one that says with restrictions on sexual relations in combat zones and with birth control available, deployed soldiers should not get pregnant.

Right. Absinence. Yes, we all know how well that works. And of course birth control is 100.00% effective.

In Iraq and Kuwait alone, the Army said 163 of its soldiers had become pregnant as of June 17.

But how could this happen? There are restrictions on sexual relations in combat zones! Deployed soldiers shouldn't get pregnant!

Defense Department spokesman James Turner said the military is bound by federal law to uphold the abortion ban, and that it is not in the business of providing what it considers elective procedures such as abortions.

That doesn't stop the military from offering service members vasectomies and cosmetic surgery, including liposuction, breast implants and nose jobs.

You can't get an abortion, but elective plastic surgery? Yes, of course! Nothing like a hot servicewoman with a great rack to keep up military morale!

In the case of cosmetic surgery, at least, that's because such operations are not necessarily elective, Turner said. Rather, they are aimed at keeping military surgeons up to date in reconstructive surgery, a crucial element in treating combat wounds.

Abortions offer no such payoff, said retired Army Sgt. Pauline Keehn.

Neither do vasecomies, but those are still offered!

"There are enough problems already surrounding the issue of pregnancy and its effect on deployment. Add the equation of those who choose abortion, and you have a logistical nightmare waiting to happen."

Oh. Yes. Heaven forbid the health of our soldiers get in the way of the logisitics of deployment.

Abortion rights activists say their biggest concern is women who become pregnant after rape or coerced sex with a senior officer. According to the Department of Defense, there were 1,012 reported sexual assaults of service members in 2003
and 901 in 2002.

Judas Priest!

Second Presidential Debate

The second presidential debate.

BUSH: Two days ago in the Oval Office, I met with the finance minister from Iraq. He came to see me. And he talked about how optimistic he was and the country was about heading toward elections.

Think about it: They're going from tyranny to elections.

He talked about the reconstruction efforts that are beginning to take hold. He talked about the fact that Iraqis love to be free.

He said he was optimistic when he came here, then he turned on the TV and listened to the political rhetoric and all of a sudden he was pessimistic.

Translation: We were feeding him the same alternate reality, things-in-Iraq-are-great slop that we dine on every morning. And all was well. Then he turned on the TV and got himself a nice dose of reality.

BUSH: He (Kerry) talks about a grand idea: Let's have a summit; we're going to solve the problem in Iraq by holding a summit.

And what is he going to say to those people that show up at the summit? Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. Risk your troops in a war you've called a mistake.

Nobody is going to follow somebody who doesn't
believe we can succeed and with somebody who says that war where we are is a mistake.

Actually, I think Kerry will just say to the rest of the world, "Hey, now that we've got that fuck-wit out of the White House, let's fix his screw-ups, okay? Instead of giving every penny of reconstruction money to Halliburton, the U.S. will include all of you. No "with us or against us" rhetoric, just "let's make this right".

Bush: I know how these people think. I meet with them all the time. I talk to Tony Blair all the time. I talk to Silvio Berlusconi. They're not going to follow an American president who says follow me into a mistake.

Don't forget Poland! You forgot Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland! Anyway...I think Bush means again. They won't follow an American president into a mistake again. They did it once a year and a half ago. They won't do it again.

Washington: What is your plan to repair relations with other countries given the current situation?

Bush: (I'm paraphrasing here) Well, I've pissed off a lot of people in Europe over the war in Iraq, over the Isreali/Palestine conflict, and over the International Criminal Court. I did things that weren't popular among European nations, but I stuck with my choices in spite of that.

Ummm, yeah. We know you screwed up and pissed off most of the world. Where again was the plan to REPAIR relations with the world?

Bush: That's why I'm a big proponent of clean coal technology, to make sure we can use coal but in a clean way.

Ever hold a piece of coal in your hand? Yeah. It's real clean stuff.

Bush: I guess you'd say I'm a good steward of the land.

Dear reader, I hope you hadn't just taken a big swig of something to drink just then, or it's likely all over the monitor now!

BUSH: The quality of the air's cleaner since I've been the president. Fewer water complaints since I've been the president.

That wouldn't have anything to do with having gutted the EPA, would it? Or with lowering the bar on what consitutes dangerous levels of toxins in the air and water? Or with allowing the very industries that do the polluting to decide what are appropriate levels of pollution?

BUSH: Let me start with how to control the cost of health care: medical liability reform...

Umm, yeah. With the cost of liability suits resulting in only 1% of the overal cost of the medical industry? That's a smart plan. Sounds like Boeing focusing on trimming Engineering costs when Engineering is only 3% of the cost of a new airplane program. Wouldn't it be wiser to focus on something that could actually make a dent in the cost of health care? Oh, wait. That wouldn't protect the profit margins of Bush's friends in the healthcare industry, so that obviously can't work.

Bush: This is different from saying, "OK, let me incent you to go on the government."

Asssphinctersayswhat??

FOWLER: President Bush, 45 days after 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which takes away checks on law enforcement and weakens American citizens' rights and freedoms, especially Fourth Amendment rights.

With expansions to the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II, my question to you is, why are my rights being watered down and my citizens' around me? And what are the specific justifications for these reforms?

BUSH: I appreciate that.

I really don't think your rights are being watered down. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't support it if I thought that.

As a matter of fact, the tools now given to the terrorist fighters are the same tools that we've been using against drug dealers and white-collar criminals.

And we all know how well the war on drugs and the war against white-collar crime (oh, hello Mr. Lay! You're not in prison?) is going. So much for the effectiveness of the PATRIOT ACT and the PATRIOT ACT II. NEXT!

Bush: So I really don't think so. I hope you don't think that. I mean, I -- because I think whoever is the president must guard your liberties, must not erode your rights in America.

Oh my, he really is living in some wierd alternate reality.

MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.
(LAUGHTER)

You know, just like they did in 2000! That's a hillarious frickin' joke. Har-dee-har-harrr.

Bush: I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

So one opinion ("under God" should stay) is acceptable, but another ("under God" should go) isn't? I thought personal opinion wasn't supposed to come in to play.

BUSH: Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

What?

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

WTF?? Constructionist judges?

Bush: And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

And also no litmus text except on how they would vote on Roe v. Wade (overturn it) and how they would vote regarding gay marriage (against) and how they would vote on "under God" (for it). In other words, they should be Fundamentalist Christian activist judges. Ooo, damn it! That was supposed to be an in-my-head thought. Crap!

BUSH: In other words, if you're a mom and you're pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one.

You mean the suspect gets tried, don't you, Mr. Bush? Innocent until proven guilty and all?

KERRY: Well, again, the president just said, categorically, my opponent is against this, my opponent is against that. You know, it's just not that simple. No, I'm not.

I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother.

KERRY: Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16-or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help, I voted against it. It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.

GIBSON: And 30 seconds, Mr. President.

BUSH: Well, it's pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no? And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no. And that's just the way it is. That's a vote. It came right up. It's clear for everybody to see.

Once again, the Imbecile-in-Chief completely misses the mark. Didn't Kerry just say he was against "partial-birth" abortions? Why, yes! Yes, he did! But he voted against the ban and against the parental notification because it didn't protect the pregnant woman to the extent that she ought to be protected. There's a difference between being against abortion and being against a law with so many riders and provisions as to distort the issue almost completely!

...and how it's really done

If I had much intellectual capacity, or studied up on history and world events, I'd be half as good as this:

A real critique of the veep debate

Veep Debate

Commentary on the veep debate.

Cheney: The effort that we've mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

Ah. So Iraq was attacked based on the possibility that it was the most likely place where terrorist could get WMD. Well, I'm satisfied. I guess it doesn't get any more iron-clad than that! Ohhh, but Iraq didn't have any WMD. Oops!

Cheney: The biggest threat we faced today is the possibility of terrorists smuggling a nuclear weapon or a biological agent into one of our own cities and threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

And this is why the Bush maladmin is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a missile defense shield? To prevent against a terrorist walking across the border with a nuke in a briefcase?

CHENEY: The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11

In September (2003), Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Seems like a pretty strong suggestion of a connection between Iraq and the terrorists responsible for 9/11 to me.

...on March 24, 2002, Cheney again told NBC, "We discovered . . . the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."

It turned out there was no evidence that Atta had left the U.S. to meet with Iraqi intelligence, but once again, it's a pretty strong suggestions of connection on the part of Cheney.

Ifill: Tonight we mentioned Afghanistan. We believe that Osama bin Laden is hiding perhaps in a cave somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

If you get a second term, what is your plan to capture him and then to neutralize those who have sprung up to replace him?

Why wait until a second term? Shouldn't the question be, "Why haven't you yet captured bin Laden and neutralized those who have sprung up to replace him"? Shouldn't the question be, "Why do you think you deserve a second term when you've failed, in three years, to capture bin Laden"?

Ifill: You two gentlemen are pretty well off. You did well for yourselves in the private sector. What can you (Cheney) tell the people of Cleveland, or people of cities like Cleveland, that your administration will do to better their lives?

Again, why are questions being asked of Cheney as if he's had no first term in office? Why not ask, "What has your administration done to better their lives? or Why hasn't your administration been successful in bettering their lives?" Why is the Bush-Cheney administration's track record not being asked about?

Cheney: And the president, his first legislative priority was the No Child Left Behind Act. It was the first piece of legislation we introduced.

Of course, he didn't fund it.

Cheney: And they have the opportunity to move students out of poorly performing schools to good schools.

In other words "vouchers". But why not turn those poorly performing schools into well performing schools? Oh, right, because that wouldn't appease your Fundie base by using tax dollars to fund Christian schools, thereby forcing all citizens to, in effect, support religious tenets to which they may not adhere.

Cheney: We also dropped 5 million people totally off the federal income tax rolls, so they no longer have to pay any federal income tax at all.

Is that because they no longer have jobs? Is this the old, "those jobless people are lucky! They don't have to pay taxes!" theme? Besides, what does removing people from the tax base do? It chokes the income of the federal government. How do you pay for a $200 billion war when you've given tax cuts to the rich and removed 5 million people from the tax rolls?

Cheney: They (Kerry-Edwards) talk about the top bracket and going after only those people in the top bracket.

Well, the fact of the matter is a great many of our small businesses pay taxes under the personal income taxes rather than the corporate rate. And about 900,000 small businesses will be hit if you do, in fact, do what they want to do with the top bracket.

That's not smart because seven out of 10 new jobs in America are created by small businesses.

I'm assuming that it would be too much of a burden for small businesses to pay taxes at the corporate rate. So create a new tax rate for small businesses and quit letting the über-wealthy in this country avoid paying their fair share by hiding behind small businesses.

On the subject of a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage:

Cheney: And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go (allowing gay marriage), as far as he's concerned. Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president.

(snip)

Kerry: Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.

(snip)

Ifill: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.

Cheney: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter.
I appreciate that very much.

Ifill: That's it?

Cheney: That's it.

In other words, "I love my daughter very much and think it's bullshit to try to ban gay marriage, but my loyalty is not to my daughter or to the American people, or the to U.S. Constitution, but to the Republican party. Therefore, I abstain from giving my thoughts on this subject".

Cheney: Some people say we should wait until we are attacked before we use force. I would argue we've already been attacked. We lost more people on 9/11 than we lost at Pearl Harbor.

That's right. So, when Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, we retaliated by invading and occupying China. Oh, wait. No, that would've been ridiculous! And that is why, when we were attacked by terrorists, most of whom were from Saudi Arabia and none of whom were from Iraq, we did not invade Iraq. Except that we did. How silly of us.

Cheney: I think it's important for us to try (for bipartisanship). I believe that it is essential for us to do everything we can to garner as much support from the other side of the aisle as possible. We've had support -- we had our keynote address at our convention was delivered by Zell Miller. So there are some Democrats who agree with our approach.

You all remember Zell, of course? The Hell Hound from the bowels of the Conservative Reich. Yes, what a shining example of bi-partisan politics he is. If Zell is what passes for a Democrat in Georgia, I can't even imagine what their Republicans must be like!

Cheney: We saw on 9/11 that the next president -- next decision a president has to make can affect the lives of all of us.

Indeed! We saw how, when a president decides to do absolutely nothing with the specific knowledge about how and by whom we'll be attacked, our lives are affected.

Comments on the debate

A couple of comments on the debate from last Thursday. Obviously, Bush had his ass handed to him by Kerry, so I won't go through the whole transcript, but a few things did stand out.

Bush: Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden.

Oops!

Bush: The killer -- the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, is in prison.

But I thought Osama bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11. This is just a poor attempt at distracting the American people from the fact that Bush hasn't caught bin Laden, whom he swore to catch "dead or alive".

Bush: He (Allawi) believes, like I believe, that the Iraqis are ready to fight for their own freedom.

Ready? Hell, they already are fighting for their freedom. Who does Bush think is shooting at American troops? It's Iraqis, fighting for their freedom!

Bush: You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way.

No, Mr. Bush, the decision you made killed that man. The decision didn't cause him to be in harm's way, it killed him.

Coming a little more than half way through the debate, here's what I see to be the knockout blow delivered by Kerry...

LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?

BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that.

But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.

...

KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, "The enemy attacked us."

Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. al Qaeda attacked us.

Ka-blamo!

BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.

Uhh, uh-duh, well, gee, uhh. Nice try dipshit! But wait, I thought you said you had caught the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Oh, and by the way, that numb feeling on your derriere? That's the feeling of Kerry wiping the floor with your ass!