Monday, October 4, 2004 11:24:27 AM
There's certainly nothing sacred about the two party system. The two dominate now, but that could easily change. What founding document can you cite that says our government is set up based on a two party system?
I agree that some of these are a little silly, but some are valid. The both candidates are going to negotiate this to their advantage; from their perspective there`s no other reason to have them. I`m certainly not going to rely on the debates to make my decision, especially since getting information on the candidates via the Internet is so easy.
Sunday, October 3, 2004 2:30:21 AM
Wow, this is the dumbest list ever. some people will look for any reason to complain. you are only making yourself look stupid. examples: #6. the debate excludes third parties.- of course it does you fool, do you want to hear ralph nader talk about how much he loves trees or would you rather hear someone who actually has a chance of winning discuss real issues? #4. the audience members must observe in silence.- are you kidding me? is this REALLY a major problem? how does it affect anything? you complain that the debates are too biased but yet you want audience members to be able to cheer like it's a football game? not only would that waste time but it also shapes peoples opinions. the facts should be the deciding point, not the audience reactions #3 the "extended discussion" can only go 30 seconds.- you complain that 30 seconds isn`t enough time to adress the issues... no poo, it`s cause they have ALREADY discussed them, hence EXTENDED? how long do you want the debat