NationStates Jolt Archive

That is to say, who came out looking the best in your opinion?

I can tell you one thing, it's not going to look good for Bush when they point out that he lied about saying he wasn't concerned about Bin Laden.

Ick. I'm surprised the Catholic Church (actually, one of the archbishops, right? correct me if i'm wrong) technically said abortion is sin....archaic term...

I can tell you one thing, it's not going to look good for Bush when they point out that he lied about saying he wasn't concerned about Bin Laden.

Ho yeah. Can't wait to watch the daily show tonight.

Kerry is getting worked over like a $5 hooker. :D

Ut, oh, it's 10:03 right now, Bush is getting his butt ironed... :D ...

They're both weasles but at least Kerry isn't pursuing a plot of world domination.

Project for a New American Century http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

Bush is lying a lot. Not as bad as Cheney did, but lots of total lies.

Both of them are totally failing to say anything new.

I'm suprised this is tying

If you already decided this debate won't exactly change your opinion anyways. You'll see what you want to see, really.

I'm suprised this is tying
Yes, Kerry should be blowing him out of the water.

Bush won this one...

Kerry got Skeweled!!

Kerry won the first part, hands down. Second part a tie, but Kerry certainly won in overal.

Yes, I believe Bush did. He was much better prepared tonight then he was for the last two debates.

It dosen't matter much to me anymore; this debate was the worst so far for distortions, misquotes, and flat out lies. Just for once I would like to see a true debate without a moderator and no rules other then no physical contact (though that would be entertaining; Celebrity Boxing: Bush VS. Kerry anyone?)

rofl, i didnt watch any of it, i had too much work to do. Sides, i doubt it would change my mind.

Not having seen the debates, I find it quite impossible to get an impression from this thread. Those that support Bush go "Bush kicked arse and Kerry sucked" while those that support Kerry go "Kerry kicked arse and Bush sucked".

Kerry won the first part, hands down. Second part a tie, but Kerry certainly won in overal.

What are you talking about??? Bush should have been owned in this debatebut it was his best yet and it was by FAR Kerry's worst. He should have slapped Bush around like a crash test dummy in this debate but somehow Kerry was on the receiving end.

Everytime I think I am not going to be surprised...lol

What are you talking about??? Bush should have been owned in this debatebut it was his best yet and it was by FAR Kerry's worst. He should have slapped Bush around like a crash test dummy in this debate but somehow Kerry was on the receiving end.

Everytime I think I am not going to be surprised...lol
Bush's best is far worse then Kerry's worst.

Yes, Kerry should be blowing him out of the water.
yeah the overall liberal to conservative ratio but who knows mabye people actually have nonpartisan voting abilty but I doubt it.

We all know that this board will go Kerry but Bush did win this debate!

What are you talking about???

Pfff. If that ain't obvious to you...

Bush should have been owned in this debate

To smash Bush, yes. Which i didn't wrote he did.

but it was his best yet and it was by FAR Kerry's worst.

I disagree. I found debate #2 the least good one.

He should have slapped Bush around like a crash test dummy in this debate but somehow Kerry was on the receiving end.

He should have done that, which he IMO did in the first part but did not do in the second. Bush had a shitty start. Kerry had an overal stable and balanced rally.

What was with that question Bush totally skirted and started talking about education? It woke me up when I realized he just went off totally.....

What was with that question Bush totally skirted and started talking about education? It woke me up when I realized he just went off totally.....
thats right education has nothing to do with jobs :rolleyes:

Bush was -destroyed-.

Nevermind?
NEVERMIND?!?!

Honestly.

It's tough to look that bad, it really is. Kerry was annoying and repetitive, but atleast he wasn't a total fluke out there.

Bush was -destroyed-.

Nevermind?
NEVERMIND?!?!

Honestly.

It's tough to look that bad, it really is. Kerry was annoying and repetitive, but atleast he wasn't a total fluke out there.

Huh!!! Where you watching the same debate I did? Kerry was not his best and Bush was!!

Bush was -destroyed-.

Nevermind?
NEVERMIND?!?!

Honestly.

It's tough to look that bad, it really is. Kerry was annoying and repetitive, but atleast he wasn't a total fluke out there.
when I saw your name on the general thing I thought "utter bigotited anti-bush post and here it is.

What was with that question Bush totally skirted and started talking about education? It woke me up when I realized he just went off totally.....
Yea, and what about the very first question..... about flu shots... Did Kerry ever mention flu shots? All he talked about was health carea dn the number of people on and off health care.

Yea, and what about the very first question..... about flu shots... Did Kerry ever mention flu shots? All he talked about was health carea dn the number of people on and off health care.

So true TheOneRule! not once did he mention Flu Shots!

Huh!!! Where you watching the same debate I did? Kerry was not his best and Bush was!!

Seriously. I am a Bush supporter, but until today I was always willing to overlook his speaking "cough cough BLUNDERS"

Today showed he could actually speak well in this type of setting(eg prepared vs off the cuff(where he does actually speak well))

Seriously. I am a Bush supporter, but until today I was always willing to overlook his speaking "cough cough BLUNDERS"

Today showed he could actually speak well in this type of setting(eg prepared vs off the cuff(where he does actually speak well))

Bush did very well today! He won this debate in my opinion!

Hmm, this was an odd one. I'd certainly say that Kerry won, but not so strongly as the first debate. I'd place this somewhere between the first (solidly his) and the second (a tie). Bush's performance was reminiscent of his first performance, although it seemed like someone told him "Be manic or amused, not incredulous!" I honestly wondered if he was on something during his first few answers...he was almost cheerful in his defense (which is pretty inappropriate). Kerry just seemed much the same when confronted with Bush's dodging and repetition when (not) answering unwanted questions.

That last question was utterly useless, feel-good, fuzzy crap...let the candidates bring up the strong women in their lives in their closing remarks, if they so choose. I really doubt someone is going to nonchalantly say, " Well, quite frankly I tell the dumb b*tch to shut her trap and do what she's told," so why ask as if there will be very different answers?

How the hell was it the same as his first debate?

Bush was 100 times better this time than the 1st one and won this debate! Show me where it was the same as the first debate?

Seriously. I am a Bush supporter, but until today I was always willing to overlook his speaking "cough cough BLUNDERS"

Today showed he could actually speak well in this type of setting(eg prepared vs off the cuff(where he does actually speak well))
Anyone notice the blunder Kerry said yesterday, I believe it was? He was talking about the price of oil, and he said "23 barrels to the dollar".

This just goes to show that anyone can make a blunder in his speech.... Including a champion debater.

If you already decided this debate won't exactly change your opinion anyways. You'll see what you want to see, really.

That's no reason to close your mind to what they have to say.

:rolleyes: thats right education has nothing to do with jobs

So true TheOneRule! not once did he mention Flu Shots!

:rolleyes: That's right, health care has nothing to do with flu shots. [/sarcasm]

Seriously though, I think Kerry was right, but Bush came off best in the debate. He managed to not answer the questions much more than Kerry did, and much more slickly. And is it just me, or did he seem to always get the last word on all the issues somehow? I only noticed Kerry getting it once or twice... Also, I'm not sure whether or not I can believe the claims of Bush wearing a wire, but at the end of today's, I saw the attachment on his back that everyone talks about and it makes me very nervous for our country. Anyone else notice it?

:rolleyes: That's right, health care has nothing to do with flu shots. [/sarcasm]

Actually it doesn't! The mall I visited over fall break was giving out flu shots! However, he did not touch on the shortage of Flu Shots. Bush did, Kerry didn't.

thats right education has nothing to do with jobs :rolleyes:


Education does have a lot to do with jobs .... in the future.

Bush was asked about a person who had just lost their job to a company that sent his job overseas. Bush's answer was to help get the man educated.

Now ... who is going to be paying the bills while this man is busy with college?

Education is nice, but it doesn't help *now*. The man needs a job that pays his bills, not a 6 hour school day.

My message to Bush: One must act in accordance with how things are, not how one wants things to be!

How the hell was it the same as his first debate?

Bush was 100 times better this time than the 1st one and won this debate! Show me where it was the same as the first debate?

If you found his fake enthusiasm and inappropriately cheerful affect to be an improvement, well, bully for you. Fact is, once again I saw a candidate on the defensive looking like a man on trial (albeit this time, a cheerful man). I saw a man who blinked nervously and, short of slumping and scowling outright, had all the trademarks of someone who was clinging to the same lines, vague claims (opposed to Kerry's statistics), and "I can do that!"-styled retorts.

Once again, Bush looking quite unpresidential (you can spin that into "folksy" or "down-to-earth" if you like), Kerry not.

Bush did very well today! He won this debate in my opinion!

won?? it was a surprising blowout. completely unexpected. Issue wise Kerry should have had him(even if its only rhetoric).

I am very pleased. I was getting prepared to at best Bush not getting killed and he turned it around like this. AMAZING

I was shocked after the first debate(the wrong way) and now I am shocked in the third debate(the right way)

Actually it doesn't!

health care also health·care (hlthkâr)
n.
The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions.

adj. also health-care (hlthkâr)
Of or relating to health care: the health care industry.

I am curious about something, though ... where the hell is Bush's upper lip? Didn't he used to have one?

Anyone can get a flu shot. However, the shortage came from Britain's end and not the US. Kerry did not touch on that! He talked about Healthcare and not once Mentioned Flu Shots.

Bush did mention Flu shots.

Bush took the question.

As I stated before too, I've seen around the area that I live in that they were offering flu shots. By def, yea but the question was regarding the SHORTAGE of Flu Shots.

won?? it was a surprising blowout. completely unexpected. Issue wise Kerry should have had him(even if its only rhetoric).

I am very pleased. I was getting prepared to at best Bush not getting killed and he turned it around like this. AMAZING

I was shocked after the first debate(the wrong way) and now I am shocked in the third debate(the right way)

Yep I have to agree with you.

Once again, Kerry won this debate.
Kerry once again, answered every question that was posed to him, and gave a complete answer.
Bush once again, did not, and chose....once again...to attack Kerry instead.

It will cost him the election.

Instead of coming out and flaunting his successes, as mostr Presidents do, when running for re-election, Bush chose instead to attack his opponent.
Bush cant come out and tell us how well things are going in Iraq, he cant come out and say that the economy is doing well, or that Osama has been captured, or that American schools are well funded...

So...instead he had to attack his opponent.

The fence sitters were watching, and it will cost him the election.

:rolleyes: That's right, health care has nothing to do with flu shots. [/sarcasm]

Well played.

Seriously though, I think Kerry was right, but Bush came off best in the debate. He managed to not answer the questions much more than Kerry did, and much more slickly. And is it just me, or did he seem to always get the last word on all the issues somehow? I only noticed Kerry getting it once or twice... Also, I'm not sure whether or not I can believe the claims of Bush wearing a wire, but at the end of today's, I saw the attachment on his back that everyone talks about and it makes me very nervous for our country. Anyone else notice it?

Indeed, Bush's dodging was making me more dizzy than his answers in previous debates, in which he relied on repetition more heavily. One could argue, and rightly so, that Bush is far more often under attack, and so he has to dodge more. My answer would be that this is just telling of his term in office. You may be right about Kerry getting the last word less frequently, but it seemed that most of the time, he didn't need it. Many of Bush's final statements on the issues seemed to be quite ineffective in refuting Kerry's points, to which Kerry would just grin or shake his head.

Damn, I forgot to look for the wire...

Once again, Kerry won this debate.
Kerry once again, answered every question that was posed to him, and gave a complete answer.

Did you not watch the same debate? he did not answer every question.

Bush once again, did not, and chose....once again...to attack Kerry instead.

Wrong again. yes he probably did some attacking but not as much as he did. He went after Kerry's record and that will Cost Kerry the election.

It will cost him the election.

I think this is over and Bush will win

Instead of coming out and flaunting his successes, as mostr Presidents do, when running for re-election, Bush chose instead to attack his opponent.

Attacking his voting record is legal and legit.

Bush cant come out and tell us how well things are going in Iraq, he cant come out and say that the economy is doing well, or that Osama has been captured, or that American schools are well funded...

And Kerry said that he won't have a test but he said that it must past a global test! Which is it?

So...instead he had to attack his opponent.

Voting record again

The fence sitters were watching, and it will cost him the election.

For Kerry! Bush will win.

Kerry once again, answered every question that was posed to him, and gave a complete answer.
I guess you missed the very first question of the debate.

So true TheOneRule! not once did he mention Flu Shots!

Actually, he did. In the beginning of the debate. So did Bush, but Bush gave it some more attention. Its not an important issue anyway...

You've said 3 times the same thing "Bush was at his best" i don't think you're really gonna add anything to the discussion by saying it a 4th time...

---

always get the last word on all the issues somehow

@ Trenera that's not necessarily a positive sign actually... i'd rather have my opponent say something without making a solid point. Makes 'em look weak :)

you do have a point there, Corneliu. But I think what Kerry was saying was that under his plan there would be measures against that sort of mishap.. admittedly filling up a lot of the time getting more into health care itself. anyone else get something different out of it, guys? But here's how I see it:

Bush: It's not my fault! Other people messed up!

Kerry: This wouldn't have happened if I were in charge.

It will cost him the election.

What scares me is that it might not. Fence-sitters may be in too short of supply, and with the short attention span of people these days, Bush's tactic of distraction and avoidance may work quite well for him.

"Oh, isn't that nice what he said about the Guardsmen who voluntarily went over to Iraq...what was the question again?"

I guess you missed the very first question of the debate.


Actually, you happen to be right, I was driving around, and tuned in just after the first question.

My point still stands.

you do have a point there, Corneliu. But I think what Kerry was saying was that under his plan there would be measures against that sort of mishap.. admittedly filling up a lot of the time getting more into health care itself. anyone else get something different out of it, guys? But here's how I see it:

Bush: It's not my fault! Other people messed up!

Kerry: This wouldn't have happened if I were in charge.
Please explain how Kerry's health plan would have had any affect on the availability of flu vaccines? That just doesn't make any sense.

Even if his plan was as perfect as he leads people to believe, it would have not any affect on that.

I guess you missed the very first question of the debate.

Thank you TheOneRule

Actually, you happen to be right, I was driving around, and tuned in just after the first question.

My point still stands.

He totally dodged the 1st Question regarding the shortage of Flu Shots! Sorry but not once did he mention flu shots.

So no your point does not stand.

That last question was utterly useless, feel-good, fuzzy crap...let the candidates bring up the strong women in their lives in their closing remarks, if they so choose. I really doubt someone is going to nonchalantly say, " Well, quite frankly I tell the dumb b*tch to shut her trap and do what she's told," so why ask as if there will be very different answers?
I was disappointed that Kerry couldn't emphasize that respect and love for strong women also means respecting what's important to them - whence he could shove it straight up Bush's arse for shutting down the White House standing commission on women's issues in one of his first official acts as president, for the junk-science flap at the FDA over the morning-after pill, for the gender gap in wages...it was a great chance to torpedo Bush with undecided female voters and he let it slip away. Sad.

I still have to give it to Kerry on points - he lied a lot less.

Why was Bush smiling all the time? What the hell is up with that smile??? Was he high? Also I am giving this to Kerry. Because I caught Bush in soo much lying it just hurts. I also caught Bush in a flip flop. First he says we shouldn't get Perscription pills from Canada. But NOW he says we should get Flu shots from Canada. Jeez.

You would think all of Americas problems
are President Bush s fult,
all the problems of America started
with President Bush.

I think President Bush clearly pointed out Kerrys
record in the senate.

I think Bush comes across as more
human, as more caring,
Kerry comes across as more phony,
one fellow nation poster wonce asked
what does Bush have, I think thats the answer.

I liked President Bush closing statement
more than Kerry closing statement.

I liked President Bush answer to
the religion question.

Actually, you happen to be right, I was driving around, and tuned in just after the first question.

My point still stands.
No, it doesn't. Your point was the Kerry answered all the questions while you insinuated that Bush only attacked Kerry.

It makes it difficult to answer all the questions when he dodges the very first question. Bush did seem to avoid some questions, I won't argue he didn't. But your blind assertion that Kerry didn't is not based on truth, but on your own preconcieved bias.

you do have a point there, Corneliu. But I think what Kerry was saying was that under his plan there would be measures against that sort of mishap.. admittedly filling up a lot of the time getting more into health care itself. anyone else get something different out of it, guys? But here's how I see it:

Bush: It's not my fault! Other people messed up!

Kerry: This wouldn't have happened if I were in charge.

Indeed, this really isn't much of an issue. It's pretty much as Bush explained it, so why would Kerry need to say anything more? He wouldn't, unless he wanted to point out how it's 1) just another example of increasing American reliance on other nations for certain vital things, and 2) yet another thing that Bush wasn't at all prepared to handle. I actually think that both candidates handled that one to their benefit, as best they could.

Attacking his voting record is legal and legit.

Uhm, ofcourse that is 'legal'. It is however not by definition 'legit'. Thats a personal viewpoint. I find this history of what each has done (server in military or not, drug abuse or not, vote history) all quite chilidish and a non-issue. What matters is the world and America as it is, and their future. Not the past of either of these wankers.

What scares me is that it might not. Fence-sitters may be in too short of supply, and with the short attention span of people these days, Bush's tactic of distraction and avoidance may work quite well for him.

"Oh, isn't that nice what he said about the Guardsmen who voluntarily went over to Iraq...what was the question again?"


All I know, is that even Bill O Reilly said that Bush had to win the second debate, or he was going to lose.
If even O Reilly thinks that...

Also, my home town is HARDCORE conservative.
We dont even have Democrats on the ballot.

But this year.......there are more Kerry signs, than anything else.

While Bush did good on the Religion issues, and the strong women issues. I don't care. I want a PRESIDENT in the Whitehouse not a priest. If I wanted a priest to guide my life I would just go to Father Al. (Yes I am Catholic). A President really should be unbaised when it comes to religion.

I don't think it will matter who wins the election, America is screwed ina major way. Whatever happens on November 2 will have massive ramifications for not only America, but for the rest of the planet. The results will be devastating for generations to come. :sniper:

I was disappointed that Kerry couldn't emphasize that respect and love for strong women also means respecting what's important to them - whence he could shove it straight up Bush's arse for shutting down the White House standing commission on women's issues in one of his first official acts as president, for the junk-science flap at the FDA over the morning-after pill, for the gender gap in wages...it was a great chance to torpedo Bush with undecided female voters and he let it slip away. Sad.

I still have to give it to Kerry on points - he lied a lot less.

Hmm, you have a point there, I suppose Kerry could have made something out of it.

He totally dodged the 1st Question regarding the shortage of Flu Shots! Sorry but not once did he mention flu shots.

So no your point does not stand.

Uh-uh! Thats not how logic works.

1) X because of Y.
2) If Y is wrong then X is wrong

Is a fallacy. Simple as that. Even in maths there are formulas which proof this: where the answer can be e.g. -100 and 100.

I think he meant to say 'more than, hence'. It does make his argument slightly weaker,if not only to make it appear like that at least.

Why was Bush smiling all the time? What the hell is up with that smile??? Was he high?

You caught that too, huh? That smile was really unsettling...and just as fake.

Or, maybe some good blow came in today. ;)

All I know, is that even Bill O Reilly said that Bush had to win the second debate, or he was going to lose.
If even O Reilly thinks that...

Yeah that indicates something perhaps but FOX said Bush won...
(CBS said Kery won 80/20.)

Wait, okay, back it up a moment.

The question on the boards was: Who won the debate.

Now, most people say Kerry, but then again those are the same people who usually do. Then we've got Cornelieu, who's saying that Bush must have won, because doggone it, he did his best, and improvement=victory. Now, of course, this is a false inference (I could try my hardest in calculus class, but if I don't know basic math, I'll still fail), but it might help if all of you put exactly why you think Kerry or Bush won. Thus far, the closest to answering that question is that Bush lied about not thinking Osama Bin Laden important.

Why was Bush smiling all the time? What the hell is up with that smile??? Was he high?

:D Ha, I was thinking that he looked high too...

I thought it kinda looked like Kerry had a black eye and tried to cover it up, too.

Uhm, ofcourse that is 'legal'. It is however not by definition 'legit'. Thats a personal viewpoint. I find this history of what each has done (server in military or not, drug abuse or not, vote history) all quite chilidish and a non-issue. What matters is the world and America as it is, and their future. Not the past of either of these wankers.

I agree, especially the way it gets so twisted out of context all the time. If it could be presented accurately, with the whole picture in-frame, it might be of more use than mere propaganda. It's all name-calling and "nuh-uh-ing" as it is. I dunno, just a nasty business all-round.

You caught that too, huh? That smile was really unsettling...and just as fake.

Or, maybe some good blow came in today. ;)

Down Syndrome?

Uh-uh! Thats not how logic works.

1) X because of Y.
2) If Y is wrong then X is wrong

Is a fallacy. Simple as that. Even in maths there are formulas which proof this: where the answer can be e.g. -100 and 100.

I think he meant to say 'more than, hence'. It does make his argument slightly weaker,if not only to make it appear like that at least.
wtf?
Let's see if we can work out logic here.
point 1: "Kerry answered every question."
fact: Kerry dodged the first question completely.
point 1 is invalid.

yea, that seems logical to me.

Wait, okay, back it up a moment.

The question on the boards was: Who won the debate.

Now, most people say Kerry, but then again those are the same people who usually do. Then we've got Cornelieu, who's saying that Bush must have won, because doggone it, he did his best, and improvement=victory. Now, of course, this is a false inference (I could try my hardest in calculus class, but if I don't know basic math, I'll still fail), but it might help if all of you put exactly why you think Kerry or Bush won. Thus far, the closest to answering that question is that Bush lied about not thinking Osama Bin Laden important.

THat is a loaded Question! Kerry Supporters will give the same answers they gave the first two times.

Even I said that Kerry won the first debate and I said that the 2nd one was a tie.

Why I thought Bush won this debate is because Bush was clear and concise. Kerry was but he also didn't defend himself to the extent he needed too. Bush was able to defend himself. He came right out of the gate. I thought his comment about Kennedy being the most Conservative Mass Senator was a classic.

Wait, okay, back it up a moment.

The question on the boards was: Who won the debate.

Now, most people say Kerry, but then again those are the same people who usually do. Then we've got Cornelieu, who's saying that Bush must have won, because doggone it, he did his best, and improvement=victory. Now, of course, this is a false inference (I could try my hardest in calculus class, but if I don't know basic math, I'll still fail), but it might help if all of you put exactly why you think Kerry or Bush won. Thus far, the closest to answering that question is that Bush lied about not thinking Osama Bin Laden important.
The people on these boards who said Kerry won, would have said that if Kerry had shown up drunk, naked, and finally passed out for the last 60 minutes. :rolleyes:

I agree, especially the way it gets so twisted out of context all the time. If it could be presented accurately, with the whole picture in-frame, it might be of more use than mere propaganda. It's all name-calling and "nuh-uh-ing". I dunno, just a nasty business all-round.

Yeah and it draws attention away from the real issues. Not a stupid to do in times of recession. The media hypes about it are also irritating. I'd rather see an in depth discussion about an issue than news on the wired scandal (also some stupid non-issue element drawing away attention).

Down Syndrome?

There's a very definite look to that, and Bush doesn't have it. He just looked like someone who was probably coached to smile more.

Xenophobialand, I stated exactly why I think Kerry won - I just don't happen to think it really hinges on answers, though. I think they play a 50-50 part with appearance in this little pseudo-debate, and I think that Bush was shifty enough that many people won't notice that his answers were lacking. Since his appearance was also lacking, as I see it, he did not win.

I was disappointed that Kerry couldn't emphasize that respect and love for strong women also means respecting what's important to them - whence he could shove it straight up Bush's arse for shutting down the White House standing commission on women's issues in one of his first official acts as president, for the junk-science flap at the FDA over the morning-after pill, for the gender gap in wages...it was a great chance to torpedo Bush with undecided female voters and he let it slip away. Sad.

Yeah, but it also would've been dirty and underhanded in a fluff question like that. Sad that fluff questions are even in there, but Kerry took the high road, to his detriment, which is nice for once in politics.

The people on these boards who said Kerry won, would have said that if Kerry had shown up drunk, naked, and finally passed out for the last 60 minutes.

Completely untrue. :p Though it might've been a close call. It'd get publicity, that's for sure.

That smile is going to give me nightmares now! lol.

All in seriousness. I think Bush tried to be slick, and that FAILED miserably. Kerry had more substance and He told less lies. If Bush nose could grow everytime he told a lie, well, lets just say his nose would be the subject of penis envy.

A person's record DOES matter. It is one of the most important things. It tells you what a person will do when the chips are down. All the verbage and plans are nice, but what did you do when it counted? Kerry is running from his own record. A man should stand on his record. The man has no integrety, therefore, a loser.

wtf?
Let's see if we can work out logic here.
point 1: "Kerry answered every question."
fact: Kerry dodged the first question completely.
point 1 is invalid.

yea, that seems logical to me.

What are smoking???

If one says:
its 15/15
to make point
while he says the other made say
10/15
and you say
"but mommy, he made 14/15! you're a liar!!!!" (which is your standpoint right now)
then who's acting like a mofo? so it was 14/15 (i personally wouldnt know btw) then that doesnt mean the actual point (that the one with '15/15' did better on that point than the one with 10/15) false; it makes it at best less strong.

Now if you still don't get it then don't bother to reply because i'm not gonna bother to try to explain it for yet another time...

Kerry owned Bush on the wage gap and women's issues. No doubt about it. He also owned Bush on the outsourcing and the fact that the country had lost a lot more jobs due to it. No lies either on those issues...oO;;

But Bush owned Kerry on Social Security. Kerry had NO plan for it. There was nothing...he basically said in different words, that he'd cross that bridge when he got to it. Now Bush's plan is irritating, but it's at least a plan.

Amazingly enough though, I voted before this last debate. And it was for neither. I'm tired of mudslinging and bashing. The fact that these two are so defensive and nitpicky on each others policies, shows me that neither of them are confident enough in their own beliefs. And that's never good. When people aren't confident, their beliefs twist themselves into what would work best for themselves, rather than others. Their heart moves inward, rather than outward.

- Asylum Nova

I really don't think we should rely on Bush's words about Kerry records. Because Factcheck.ORG states that Bush numbers on Kerry voting records are skewed.

What are smoking???

If one says:
its 15/15
to make point
while he says the other made say
10/15
and you say
"but mommy, he made 14/15! you're a liar!!!!" (which is your standpoint right now)
then who's acting like a mofo? so it was 14/15 (i personally wouldnt know btw) then that doesnt mean the actual point (that the one with '15/15' did better on that point than the one with 10/15) false; it makes it at best less strong.

Now if you still don't get it then don't bother to reply because i'm not gonna bother to try to explain it for yet another time...
The question was a simple one. What to be done about the flu vaccine shortage.
Kerry mentioned flu vaccine not one time. He rambled on about health care and health care coverage, which would have had no affect on flu vaccine availability.
I believe that the question was to bring up the whole re-importation of drugs issue from Canada, but Kerry dodged the whole thing.

I really don't think we should rely on Bush's words about Kerry records. Because Factcheck.ORG states that Bush numbers on Kerry voting records are skewed.
shoot... factcheck.org says Kerry's numbers on Kerrys records are skewed :rolleyes:

Man Kerry should've slammed Bush on importing drugs from Canada. Man I can't believe he missed an obvious flip flop.

What are smoking???

If one says:
its 15/15
to make point
while he says the other made say
10/15
and you say
"but mommy, he made 14/15! you're a liar!!!!" (which is your standpoint right now)
then who's acting like a mofo? so it was 14/15 (i personally wouldnt know btw) then that doesnt mean the actual point (that the one with '15/15' did better on that point than the one with 10/15) false; it makes it at best less strong.

Now if you still don't get it then don't bother to reply because i'm not gonna bother to try to explain it for yet another time...


What are you smoking??? EVERY means all. If he did not answer ALL the questions (15/15) then he did not answer EVERY one. They said Kerry asnwered every question, and that is NOT true. if you say " I got every one right" only to find out that you only got 14, then you cant turn around and say, "well, the other guy got fewer, so I still got every one right" There is no grading on a curve. Either he answered all of them, or he didn't.

I'd rather see an in depth discussion about an issue than news on the wired scandal (also some stupid non-issue element drawing away attention).

Not necessarily... what if it's true?

Kerry is running from his own record.

Kerry brags about his record every chance he gets. He just ignores it when numbers are fudged against him, like the irritating voting claims. He's got plenty going for him record-wise.

shoot... factcheck.org says Kerry's numbers on Kerrys records are skewed

That's the thing, it's politics, everything of that nature is skewed (or an outright lie) and therefore worthless, it's annoying.

I really don't think we should rely on Bush's words about Kerry records. Because Factcheck.ORG states that Bush numbers on Kerry voting records are skewed.

Indeed, and anyone whose seen this point brought up before knows that oftentimes, in those votes Bush keeps repeating, Kerry either voted for a better alternative plan or simply against a bad one. I also love how Bush still goes back to evoking the "L" word ("Lib-rul," that is) now and then - way to capitalize on the AM radio flocks.

And yes, a man should stand on his record - Kerry doesn't shy away when his is brought up. Bush, on the other hand, will go off on vague, glimmering tangents about how peachy keen everything is when someone questions his. Hmm...

Kerry got beat like a drum.

What are smoking???

If one says:
its 15/15
to make point
while he says the other made say
10/15
and you say
"but mommy, he made 14/15! you're a liar!!!!" (which is your standpoint right now)
then who's acting like a mofo? so it was 14/15 (i personally wouldnt know btw) then that doesnt mean the actual point (that the one with '15/15' did better on that point than the one with 10/15) false; it makes it at best less strong.

Now if you still don't get it then don't bother to reply because i'm not gonna bother to try to explain it for yet another time...



Listen. you to are arguing 2 different points.
Yes...If you argue that Kerry won b/c he answered all the questions, and in fact he missed just one then that doesn't mean that Kerry lost.

But, you have to admit that the statement made "Kerry once again, answered every question that was posed to him, and gave a complete answer." is false with out question. Therefor the guy made a point on a false premise. He needs to start over with his argument. You can not have an argument based on a false premise. It Wont float.

Speaking of dodging, I answered this already, as have a couple other people. Was it your mistake or tactic to not notice? ;)

I guess that you think he answered it when infact He did not answer it.

Kerry on Flu Vaccine Question:

KERRY: This really underscores the problem with the American health-care system. It's not working for the American family. And it's gotten worse under President Bush over the course of the last years.

Five million Americans have lost their health insurance in this country. You've got about a million right here in Arizona, just shy, 950,000, who have no health insurance at all. 82,000 Arizonians lost their health insurance under President Bush's watch. 223,000 kids in Arizona have no health insurance at all.

All across our country — go to Ohio, 1.4 million Ohioans have no health insurance, 114,000 of them lost it under President Bush; Wisconsin, 82,000, Wisconsites lost it under President Bush.

This president has turned his back on the wellness of America. And there is no system. In fact, it's starting to fall apart not because of lawsuits — though they are a problem, and John Edwards and I are committed to fixing them — but because of the larger issue that we don't cover Americans.

Children across our country don't have health care. We're the richest country on the face of the planet, the only industrialized nation in the world not to do it.

I have a plan to cover all Americans. We're going to make it affordable and accessible. We're going to let everybody buy into the same health-care plan senators and congressmen give themselves.

Where in this quote did he mention Flu Vaccines or talking about Flu Vaccines?

I finally think that there was a definite win for John Kerry.

Bush accused Kerry of voting 98 times to raise taxes. Kerry pointed out the hundreds of times he voted to decrease taxes. Bush simply repeated the 98 votes.

Kerry said that Bush once admitted to not being worried about Osama bin Laden. Bush denied it. The fact check pages are now kicking Bush's ass on that one.

Kerry's plan to discriminate against gays a little less than Bush would was a little less repulsive than Bush's plan to discriminate against gays a little more than Kerry would.

Kerry finally mentioned a few plans to cut spending. Bush had no answer to his lack of vetoes against pork barrel spending.

Bush bet the entire health care issue on people believing what he says about trial lawyers.

I liked the part where Bush spent five seconds standing there laughing like Beavis. His laugh has always sounded a little like Beavis but tonight's laugh was indistinguishable from Beavis' laugh.

Kerry's biggest and possibly only mistake was accusing Bush of never meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus. The fact check pages are kicking Kerry's ass on that one, but it's not nearly enough to diminish Kerry's strength on the other issues.

I guess that you think he answered it when infact He did not answer it.

Isn't that cute...now why don't you go back and address what I actually said?

Summary
Bush: Specific issue, "It's not my fault." (and he may indeed be right)
Kerry: Broader issue, "Bush's fault, I wouldn't have let it happen." (ditto, though heaven forbid he addressed it within the context of a larger problem)

Kerry got beat like a drum.

Hey great, now we've got one party line. Where's Red Arrow?

EDIT: Great specifics, Pantylvania.

Isn't that cute...now why don't you go back and address what I actually said?

Did you read what Kerry said?


Here is what Fact Check has to say!

Fact Check Finding (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135384,00.html)

Where in this quote did he mention Flu Vaccines or talking about Flu Vaccines?

KERRY: This really underscores the problem with the American health-care system.

He's saying nobody's getting their damn flu vaccines, who cares if a box or two doesn't make it here from the UK, I want to fix the source, not the symptom. It's basically skipping the human interest story about the lost puppy and looking at a documentary on packs of animals stuck roaming the city streets. Am I right, guys?

Did you read what Kerry said?


Here is what Fact Check has to say!

Fact Check Finding (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135384,00.html)

FoxNews...heh, that's funny. Did you expect that to actually fly?

Regardless, why don't you quote what in there supports your point and refutes mine? I sure didn't see it. Or, are you now not addressing the issue of flu shots in lieu of the larger picture?

What are you smoking??? EVERY means all. If he did not answer ALL the questions (15/15) then he did not answer EVERY one. They said Kerry asnwered every question, and that is NOT true. if you say " I got every one right" only to find out that you only got 14, then you cant turn around and say, "well, the other guy got fewer, so I still got every one right" There is no grading on a curve. Either he answered all of them, or he didn't.

Hey dude if you want to start proposition games go to some talk show. It doesn't really matter if what he said was either true or false. What matters is the truth. The truth and point he made was that Kerry was simply answering more questions directly; his point was correct but his proof was slightly off from factually correct.

THAT is what matters.

He's saying nobody's getting their damn flu vaccines, who cares if a box or two doesn't make it here from the UK, I want to fix the source, not the symptom. It's basically skipping the human interest story about the lost puppy and looking at a documentary on packs of animals roaming the city streets. Am I right, guys?

Unfortunately for you, People are getting their flu vaccines so why is Kerry saying that Nobody is getting them when they are?

FoxNews...heh, that's funny. Did you expect that to actually fly?

Regardless, why don't you quote what in there supports your point and refutes mine? I sure didn't see it. Or, are you now not addressing the issue of flu shots in lieu of the larger picture?
Because that was the question... of did you miss that?

But you seem to think Kerry did answer the question.. so tell me, assuming Kerry's health coverage plan had been implemented 4 years ago... how would that have prevented the shortage of flu vaccine we are now experiencing?

FoxNews...heh, that's funny. Did you expect that to actually fly?

Regardless, why don't you quote what in there supports your point and refutes mine? I sure didn't see it. Or, are you now not addressing the issue of flu shots in lieu of the larger picture?

WASHINGTON — President Bush (search) overlooked a flip-flop of his own when he boasted Wednesday about launching the Homeland Security Department (search): He was against it before he was for it. John Kerry (search) told Americans he has a health care plan that covers all of them, when he doesn't.

Figures and rhetorical claims flew in the last presidential debate, and not all them were on target.

Kerry accurately quoted Bush as saying he does not think much about Osama bin Laden and is not all that concerned about him. The president protested: "I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."

But in March 2002, Bush indeed said, "I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run." He described the terrorist leader as "marginalized," and said, "I just don't spend that much time on him."

Kerry declared, "I have a plan to cover all Americans" with health insurance, but even his campaign does not contend his blueprint would eliminate the ranks of the uninsured. Independent analysts say full implementation of Kerry's plan would extend coverage to about 25 million of the nearly 45 million uninsured.

He also said Bush has cut Pell grants, but later altered the accusation when the president pointed out accurately that about 1 million more students are getting the aid than when he took office. Kerry then said Bush has not raised the maximum Pell grant as much as promised

They're not getting the $5,100 the president promised them," he said. Education Secretary Rod Paige said the month after Bush took office that the maximum grant for first-year students would go up by more than half, to $5,100. But the maximum now is $4,050.

Also in the debate:

— Kerry, trying to show Bush has paid too little heed to civil rights, stated flatly, "This is a president who hasn't met with the Black Congressional Caucus." Actually, Bush met the caucus at the White House within two weeks of taking office.

— Bush talked about how he signed the bill creating the Homeland Security Department, putting that on his list of actions that have made the country safer. But he was a convert to that cause, at first opposing the massive reorganization.

— Kerry sharply criticized Bush on port security inspections of ship cargo, saying "95 percent come in today uninspected. That's not good enough."

Kerry's claim ignores that the manifests of all U.S.-bound cargo are screened before they reach American ports and all high-risk cargo is identified. U.S. officials then physically inspect the high-risk cargo — which accounts for about 5 percent of the overall total.

On whether the inspections are adequate, a new report by the Homeland Security Department internal investigator that surfaced Wednesday concluded federal inspectors of oceangoing shipping containers still need to improve their detection equipment and search procedures to prevent terrorists from sneaking weapons of mass destruction into the United States.

— Bush accused Kerry of voting 98 times to raise taxes during his 19-year Senate career. An analysis by the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org found that 43 of the votes cited by the president involved budget measures that merely set targets for taxes without actually legislating changes to the tax code. The list also counted multiple votes on the same bills, including 16 votes on the 1993 Clinton package of tax increases and spending cuts.

Just some of the findings on this debate.

Listen. you to are arguing 2 different points.
Yes...If you argue that Kerry won b/c he answered all the questions, and in fact he missed just one then that doesn't mean that Kerry lost.

But, you have to admit that the statement made "Kerry once again, answered every question that was posed to him, and gave a complete answer." is false with out question. Therefor the guy made a point on a false premise. He needs to start over with his argument. You can not have an argument based on a false premise. It Wont float.

..that way would not be practical on a forum because its like a cafe where people pop up for 15 minutes and go again, or only pop up to say something after which they're gone again, most of the time without saying bye.

In this case, thats also true. So i assume -given the person ain't here anymore- he'd reargue the argument but then more precisely. I do that in my head. Its not a big deal really, because his point still stands. Its only a bit less strong. Its not worth that much time either if you ask me.

It's basically skipping the human interest story about the lost puppy and looking at a documentary on packs of animals stuck roaming the city streets. Am I right, guys?

But I want to hear about the puppy! He didn't talk about the puppy!

Heh, yeah, that was pretty much my take on it.

Hey dude if you want to start proposition games go to some talk show. It doesn't really matter if what he said was either true or false. What matters is the truth. The truth and point he made was that Kerry was simply answering more questions directly; his point was correct but his proof was slightly off from factually correct.

THAT is what matters.
No, you are spinning the original post in question. It wasn't that Kerry answered more questions directly (I'll wait till I can read the transcript to make that assesment) but that Kerry answered ALL questions directly. That simply isn't true.

Now that hardly sets the tone of the debate when the very first question is dodged so completely by Kerry.

Fact Check Finding (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135384,00.html) <-- foxnews.com

And you just lowered your credibility to that of a conservative zealot. Not a smart thing to do in a heatened discussion like this. (Hence also my last reply to you in this thread FWIW.)

Unfortunately for you, People are getting their flu vaccines so why is Kerry saying that Nobody is getting them when they are?

KERRY: This really underscores the problem with the American health-care system. It's not working for the American family. And it's gotten worse under President Bush over the course of the last years.

Five million Americans have lost their health insurance in this country. You've got about a million right here in Arizona, just shy, 950,000, who have no health insurance at all. 82,000 Arizonians lost their health insurance under President Bush's watch. 223,000 kids in Arizona have no health insurance at all.

All across our country — go to Ohio, 1.4 million Ohioans have no health insurance, 114,000 of them lost it under President Bush; Wisconsin, 82,000, Wisconsites lost it under President Bush.

This president has turned his back on the wellness of America. And there is no system. In fact, it's starting to fall apart not because of lawsuits — though they are a problem, and John Edwards and I are committed to fixing them — but because of the larger issue that we don't cover Americans.

Children across our country don't have health care. We're the richest country on the face of the planet, the only industrialized nation in the world not to do it.

I have a plan to cover all Americans. We're going to make it affordable and accessible. We're going to let everybody buy into the same health-care plan senators and congressmen give themselves.

:rolleyes: Fine, not literally nobody. Just millions. Happy?

unfortunately for the educated, most people don't listen to a word either candidate was saying. They look for visual cues, stutters, facial expressions, who "looks more like a president"

Bush stumbled alot, even at one point lost his train of thought and branched to something different. Said things like "and also." and never finished his thought. That is what most Americans will see.

I'm watching a replay of it right now--missed it earlier--and I don't know how anyone could watch it honestly and say that Bush came out on top in this thing. Kerry won all three, and won them going away.

Just some of the findings on this debate.

Uh huh, and...? I read all that, and while interesting, I see nothing about flu shots.

Incidentally, the reason I deleted that message you quoted was because I realized that if all it comes down to is that Kerry didn't address the smaller picture, I don't really care to argue the point. I and others have pointed out that it really doesn't matter.

:rolleyes: Fine, not literally nobody. Just millions. Happy?

Some people just won't get them. I'm not getting one, my roommate isn't getting one!

Alot of people won't be getting them because they just don't care. Children and the Elderly will get them. It is recommended and they are making sure that they get them IF they want it.

Uh huh, and...? I read all that, and while interesting, I see nothing about flu shots.

And i wasn't talking about Just Flu Shots! I was posting what they have found WRONG!

..that way would not be practical on a forum because its like a cafe where people pop up for 15 minutes and go again, or only pop up to say something after which they're gone again, most of the time without saying bye.

In this case, thats also true. So i assume -given the person ain't here anymore- he'd reargue the argument but then more precisely. I do that in my head. Its not a big deal really, because his point still stands. Its only a bit less strong. Its not worth that much time either if you ask me.

oh...im here. I take time to read the whole forum and then reply, then i wait, then i have to check on something else. Because im not here when you want me to be that makes my point less valid or worthy..Go ahead, what do you want to ask me??

No, you are spinning the original post in question.

It could seem like that, but if someone asks me: "are you hungry" and i say "yes" i expect the next question to be "what are we gonna eat" or a statement like "i'd prefer X". Same here, you know damn well what was being implied. I think you rather don't want to know, deny it :)

but that Kerry answered ALL questions directly. That simply isn't true.

If i'm away in the evening and my son wants money to eat and i give him 2 dollar while he says he needs 10 then i expect him to use say 9 dollar. I'd care less what he'd do with that one dollar. But if he's gonna use only 3 dollar and use the rest (7 dollar) to buy comics and i'd find that out i'd discuss that because thats simply not honest.

Its called relative. You should look that up in your dictionary, its really a wonderful cure for illogic.

Now that hardly sets the tone of the debate when the very first question is dodged so completely by Kerry.

(Also quite debatable given the anser of a poster here above; he wanted to get by the roots.)

unfortunately for the educated, most people don't listen to a word either candidate was saying. They look for visual cues, stutters, facial expressions, who "looks more like a president"

Bush stumbled alot, even at one point lost his train of thought and branched to something different. Said things like "and also." and never finished his thought. That is what most Americans will see.

Indeed, appearance and substance ought to be about 10/90 in importance, but it's most of a 50/50 now, at best. I'll stop there before I get too cynical.

oh...im here. I take time to read the whole forum and then reply, then i wait, then i have to check on something else. Because im not here when you want me to be that makes my point less valid or worthy..Go ahead, what do you want to ask me??

I was referring to the original poster in question, the person who claimed Kerry answered all questions. I weren't referring to you. orry if i gave a wrong impression on that. :fluffle:

And i wasn't talking about Just Flu Shots! I was posting what they have found WRONG!

So was John Kerry.

It could seem like that, but if someone asks me: "are you hungry" and i say "yes" i expect the next question to be "what are we gonna eat" or a statement like "i'd prefer X". Same here, you know damn well what was being implied. I think you rather don't want to know, deny it :)

If i'm away in the evening and my son wants money to eat and i give him 2 dollar while he says he needs 10 then i expect him to use say 9 dollar. I'd care less what he'd do with that one dollar. But if he's gonna use only 3 dollar and use the rest (7 dollar) to buy comics and i'd find that out i'd discuss that because thats simply not honest.

Its called relative. You should look that up in your dictionary, its really a wonderful cure for illogic.

(Also quite debatable given the anser of a poster here above; he wanted to get by the roots.)
You still didn't answer my question... assuming if Kerry's health coverage plan had been implemented 4 years ago, enough time for bugs to get sort of worked out... how would it have had any affect on the flu vaccine shortage.. which was the question.

Using your analogy "are you hungry" Kerry answered "I don't like broccoli". Yea the answer is vaguely related to the question, but didn't answer it.

Flu vaccine is related to health care.
Kerry's answer was about health care.
Kerry answered the question.

Yes he answered it, but he didn't address the question.

So was John Kerry.

No John Kerry talked about Health Care. Not Flu SHots.

(though that would be entertaining; Celebrity Boxing: Bush VS. Kerry anyone?)

I'd pay to see that!! My money's on Bush. He works out, although Kerry's taller and has more reach.

That's how all world conflicts should be solved: steel-cage deathmatch!! The whole Israel-Palestine thing:
Arafat-Sharon, no-holds-barred, live on Pay-Per-View. Oh yeah!

I'm watching a replay of it right now--missed it earlier--and I don't know how anyone could watch it honestly and say that Bush came out on top in this thing. Kerry won all three, and won them going away.
Absolutely correct there Incertonia, and the latest Gallup Poll even has Kerry ahead 49 to 48 of decided voters (surprised me there). :D

http://www.gallup.com/election2004/

Gonna be interesting!!

No John Kerry talked about Health Care. Not Flu SHots.

*Shakes head*

Repetition didn't work for Bush, and it doesn't work for you. It's already been established that Kerry addressed the bigger picture after Bush addressed the smaller. You want to argue semantics, take it up with someone else. Next.

*Shakes head*

Repetition didn't work for Bush, and it doesn't work for you. It's already been established that Kerry addressed the bigger picture after Bush addressed the smaller. You want to argue semantics, take it up with someone else. Next.
Answer my question.. if you believed that Kerry answered the "bigger" picture.

Absolutely correct there Incertonia, and the latest Gallup Poll even has Kerry ahead 49 to 48 of decided voters (surprised me there). :D

http://www.gallup.com/election2004/

Gonna be interesting!!Actually, Gallup had it Kerry 53 Bush 39--it's available at CNN.com. The ABC poll (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=163784) had it tied at 42%, but the party breakdown favored Republicans by 8 points, so you might want to dscount that a bit.

Answer my question.. if you believed that Kerry answered the "bigger" picture.

I haven't deciphered a question out of your messages for the last few pages. Go back and read the summary of the responses I posted pages ago, and someone else pages before that. It's going on 5 pages, and I'm done repeating myself/trying to decipher your "logic" (which seems to come down to "How can I reframe the same tired question to make me right?").

Ick. I'm surprised the Catholic Church (actually, one of the archbishops, right? correct me if i'm wrong) technically said abortion is sin....archaic term...

"Sin" is archaic?!? Maybe that's the problem with this country - and the world - today. People aren't concerned about doing what's right because there is no idea of right and wrong anymore. "Sin" is not archaic. It's just that, unfortunately, too many people aren't concerned with whether they sin or not. The "do whatever you want without worrying about the consequences" attitude has brought down the U.S. society. Doing the moral thing used to be the goal of this country. Morality, today, is something which is vanishing in our world. So maybe "sin" is a word that people should start using more often.

John Kerry: "The war on terror is only about Osama Bin Laden."

John Kerry: "I will raise your taxes."

John Kerry: "I will create a 653 billion dollar national healthcare program that will force you and your children into debt."

John Kerry: "Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time, so we should give it to Al Qaeda."

John Kerry: "North Korea has nukes? I told you it was bad to elect Bush."
(North Korea got its first 2 bombs in 1994 under Clinton.)

John Kerry: "Seniors are too dumb to know what's good for them."

John Kerry: "No Child Left Behind needs more funding, so I am going to abolish this program even though it is successful."

John Kerry: "I am going to bring back the draft."

John Kerry: "I will impose a litmus test on all Supreme Court nominees and everyone else who wants to work for the federal government. They must all agree with and whole heartedly support my policies and political views."

John Kerry: "We need affirmative action cause women, blacks and minorities are incapable of thinking or making their own decisions."

John Kerry: "I will make the national dept quadruple by increasing the size of government and increasing federal regulations of people's personal lives."

John Kerry: "My faith is the only one that's valid."

Blah blah blah

"Visitors," huh? Let's hope you're just passing through, since that was the biggest load of crap to hit this board yet.

I was at the Kerry rally afterwards, and I gotta say, it was awesome, seeing up close the next president of america. ;)

[...]

Using your analogy "are you hungry" Kerry answered "I don't like broccoli". Yea the answer is vaguely related to the question, but didn't answer it.

Flawed. What he got asked is: "are you gonna spend 1 hour more on drug offense or on sexual harrasament" after which he explains how he's gonna invest more time in police as well. Its called drawing attention to the actual problem.

cause and effect -- look that up in the dict, too. TIA.

[...]Yes he answered it, but he didn't address the question.

That is because the issue is a non-issue. The flu epidemy is over in 1 month, a flu generally lasts only about a week. The healthcare problem is not solved in 1 week and is a much bigger, greater issue.

Don't try me with flawed analogies. I'm very good at this stuff. :)

"Visitors," huh? Let's hope you're just passing through, since that was the biggest load of crap to hit this board yet.
Roaches! There everywhere. Has someone called Terminex?

Roaches! There everywhere. Has someone called Terminex?

See, now that was somewhat humorous. Now your existence here has some meaning.

10: Cleans Visitors
20: Repairs logic
30: Self-Repair
40: Replicate

it was an alright debate... Kerry obviously won, although Bush I think was at his best I have ever seen him. Kerry is a wimp though and never uses any of the good ammunition. Everything they both say is the same tired old stuff.

{he said some stuff}John Kerry did so well that now the anti-Kerry crowd has to make up more things for him to have said. At least three of those quotes were the polar opposite of what Kerry said. The pro-Kerry crowd doesn't have to make up things for Bush to have said

The flu epidemy is over in 1 month, a flu generally lasts only about a week. The healthcare problem is not solved in 1 week and is a much bigger, greater issue.

You are so right. In fact, the healthcare problem is not easily fixed in 4 years. Hell, Clinton didn't do anything with it in 8 years. At least Bush has made some strides. But I think the real problem is that all the politicians aren't willing to let go of the "same old, same old" way of thinking. They are trying to perpetuate healthcare ideas that were implemented years ago and they just don't work today. However, I think they're all concerned about alienating voters by thinking out of the box and proposing really new ideas.

The same goes for the tax issue. At one point it was rumored that the Bush/Cheney people were going to totally scrap the current tax system and set up more of a luxury tax system. However, I think that idea got thrown out because they feared the American public might not openly accept such a radical change. Nevermind if the idea is good or bad, it would have been radical and people are very slow in accepting such major shifts. I think that's part of the reason the gay issue is still so hot. People are slow to accept something that doesn't fit in nicely with what they have grown accustomed to.

The problem with jobs...same thing. We have so many people trying to cling to the manufacturing jobs like the steel industry. They aren't willing to accept the fact that we don't need the same amount of steel that we needed back in the days of rapid growth in this country. And it's a legitimate argument that companies can buy much cheaper steel from overseas because the unions have jacked up salaries so much. But, even without that, we just don't need as much steel as we used to. (FYI - I live in an area where steel industries were once the heart and soul of the working community.)

The pro-Kerry crowd doesn't have to make up things for Bush to have said

Not true. Someone posted very similar "quotes" about Bush recently. But, obviously, anyone who reads those posts should know that whoever created them was simply making an attempt at satire.

I felt a little humour could be injected in this thread about now:
http://www.ucomics.com/tomtoles/2004/10/14/

Flawed. What he got asked is: "are you gonna spend 1 hour more on drug offense or on sexual harrasament" after which he explains how he's gonna invest more time in police as well. Its called drawing attention to the actual problem.

cause and effect -- look that up in the dict, too. TIA.



That is because the issue is a non-issue. The flu epidemy is over in 1 month, a flu generally lasts only about a week. The healthcare problem is not solved in 1 week and is a much bigger, greater issue.

Don't try me with flawed analogies. I'm very good at this stuff. :)
You are so wrong.

First, I have to appologize for saying it was the first question, it wasn't.... it was the second.

However, the second question was:
"We are talking about protecting ourselves from the unexpected, but the flu season is suddenly upon us. Flu kills thousands of people every year.

Suddenly we find ourselves with a severe shortage of flu vaccine. How did that happen?"
Kerry's answer was about health care coverage.
Now I have asked time and again, and you have failed to address the question this:
Assuming Kerry's health care had been implemented in its entirety 4 years ago, how would that have had any affect whatsoever on the flu vaccine situation we are seeing today.

As for your flawed assertion that the flu vaccine is a non-issue, I might remind you that the death rate from flu and flu complications is a significant problem, particularly among the elderly, young and those with respitory ailments. In fact this source http://www.rockford.uic.edu/HSR/Winnebago%20County/winndeathsbyracecause.htm shows the death rate higher than homicide, suicide and HIV put together.

Or are those non-issues as well?

Kerry is getting worked over like a $5 hooker. :D
Nothing but top drawer for you? :eek:

Um, why is either of the candidates not answering questions an issue? They've all been doing it since the first debate. To provide a counterpoint:

SCHIEFFER: : Mr. President, I want to go back to something Senator Kerry said earlier tonight and ask a follow-up of my own. He said—and this will be a new question to you—he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I‘d ask you directly, would you like to?

BUSH: What he‘s asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I‘ll have no litmus test.

SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry, you‘d like to respond?

Yeah, that answers the question.

Additionally, this was the most hysterical part of the entire debate and made me laugh out loud:

BUSH: In all due respect, I‘m not so sure it‘s credible to quote leading news organizations about—oh, never mind.

Um, why is either of the candidates not answering questions an issue? They've all been doing it since the first debate. To provide a counterpoint:

SCHIEFFER: : Mr. President, I want to go back to something Senator Kerry said earlier tonight and ask a follow-up of my own. He said—and this will be a new question to you—he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I‘d ask you directly, would you like to?

BUSH: What he‘s asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I‘ll have no litmus test.

That was actually the question. It was about overturning R v W and that can only be done by the courts. Kerry will have a litmus test so that no Pro-life Judges, and there are some but they do uphold the Constitution of the United States! Bush is saying there will be no such litmus test and there shouldn't be a litmus test.

SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry, you‘d like to respond?

Yeah, that answers the question.

And what did Kerry say? Something about appointing judges who won't overturn R v W. In otherwords, a litmus test.

Additionally, this was the most hysterical part of the entire debate and made me laugh out loud:

BUSH: In all due respect, I‘m not so sure it‘s credible to quote leading news organizations about—oh, never mind.

And we all know how credible ABC and CBS are now don't we :rolleyes:

That was actually the question. It was about overturning R v W and that can only be done by the courts. Kerry will have a litmus test so that no Pro-life Judges, and there are some but they do uphold the Constitution of the United States! Bush is saying there will be no such litmus test and there shouldn't be a litmus test.

I'm well aware of what Bush is claiming. The question was very clearly: Would you like to overturn Roe v. Wade? Read it. Then read it again. And then tell me how "litmus test" or "appoint judges" ever should have even entered the answer.

And what did Kerry say? Something about appointing judges who won't overturn R v W. In otherwords, a litmus test.

No, he answered that he wanted to NOT overturn Roe v. Wade, which answered the question. Unlike Dubya. You might as well forget about trying to win this argument, because you're simply wrong. Additionally, Dubya was the one who shifted the focus of the answers and hence Kerry naturally had to respond to Bush's claims. So please, don't act like Kerry was guilty here.

And we all know how credible ABC and CBS are now don't we :rolleyes:

*laugh* So defensive. He looked like a complete idiot because he obviously had a knee-jerk reaction about how to respond (discredit the source), then realized how badly it would play, stopped and just looked goofy. I've had lots of Bush supporters tell me that he should've faked a stroke to get out of that one. The claim had nothing to do with the credibility or lack thereof for any news organization. Additionally, trying to make blanket claims about any major news media organization is probably a bad idea. Big blunder on his part and I laughed out loud about it.

I'm well aware of what Bush is claiming. The question was very clearly: Would you like to overturn Roe v. Wade? Read it. Then read it again. And then tell me how "litmus test" or "appoint judges" ever should have even entered the answer.

In this case, what Bush said was the answer to the question. It was a nice attempt to get him to say he will and then smacked him with saying that I won't have a litmus test for judges.

No, he answered that he wanted to NOT overturn Roe v. Wade, which answered the question. Unlike Dubya. You might as well forget about trying to win this argument, because you're simply wrong. Additionally, Dubya was the one who shifted the focus of the answers and hence Kerry naturally had to respond to Bush's claims. So please, don't act like Kerry was guilty here.

That Kerry did. But he said that he won't appoint judges who want to overturn it.

I'm going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today — under the Constitution.elieve that the right of choice is a constitutional right.

Seems to me he has a litmus test for judges and yet the ABA has already set a standard since they're the ones that rate lawyers/Judges.

*laugh* So defensive. He looked like a complete idiot because he obviously had a knee-jerk reaction about how to respond (discredit the source), then realized how badly it would play, stopped and just looked goofy. I've had lots of Bush supporters tell me that he should've faked a stroke to get out of that one. The claim had nothing to do with the credibility or lack thereof for any news organization. Additionally, trying to make blanket claims about any major news media organization is probably a bad idea. Big blunder on his part and I laughed out loud about it.

CBS has had its credibility questioned thanks to Dan Rather and his 60 minutes episode. He did apologize (sort of) but the damage was done to CBS.

And a report is out there that ABC and NBC are both rooting for Kerry. Yea you can make the claim that FNC is rooting for Bush and that study shows that out. I actually applaud this study too btw.

SO all media outlets are questionable.

In this case, what Bush said was the answer to the question. It was a nice attempt to get him to say he will and then smacked him with saying that I won't have a litmus test for judges.

So why didn't he say he would like to, but he won't appoint judges based on that? He could've used "I won't force my faith on others" answer that Kerry did. Either he does have a litmus test and doesn't want to be pinned down on it, or else he needlessly didn't answer the question "Would you like to overturn Roe V. Wade?"

That Kerry did. But he said that he won't appoint judges who want to overturn it.

Yes, after Bush made claims about litmus tests, Kerry then did explain what his was. That's reacting to Bush not answering the question.

CBS has had its credibility questioned thanks to Dan Rather and his 60 minutes episode. He did apologize (sort of) but the damage was done to CBS.

And a report is out there that ABC and NBC are both rooting for Kerry. Yea you can make the claim that FNC is rooting for Bush and that study shows that out. I actually applaud this study too btw.

SO all media outlets are questionable.

This is not a question of whether or not media outlets are questionable. It's a question of the way Bush went about giving his answer. No one's arguing the bias question except you. Please stop. Bush's answer made him look incredibly foolish regardless of whether or not he was "right". Knee-jerk conservatism for its own sake is silly, particularly when you start trying to act righteous about an issue that I'm not discussing.

So why didn't he say he would like to, but he won't appoint judges based on that? He could've used "I won't force my faith on others" answer that Kerry did. Either he does have a litmus test and doesn't want to be pinned down on it, or else he needlessly didn't answer the question "Would you like to overturn Roe V. Wade?"

Because its a no win question. Bush played it right. Kerry did not. All Kerry did was play into Bush's base in reality.

Yes, after Bush made claims about litmus tests, Kerry then did explain what his was. That's reacting to Bush not answering the question.

Its still a litmus test no matter how you look at it.

This is not a question of whether or not media outlets are questionable. It's a question of the way Bush went about giving his answer. No one's arguing the bias question except you. Please stop. Bush's answer made him look incredibly foolish regardless of whether or not he was "right". Knee-jerk conservatism for its own sake is silly, particularly when you start trying to act righteous about an issue that I'm not discussing.

In this case it is which is why he didn't follow through with the thought. I wish he did but that would've been a bad political move and even I would've called him on it. Instead, I applaud him for changing course.

Because its a no win question. Bush played it right. Kerry did not. All Kerry did was play into Bush's base in reality.

So candidates are exempted from answering the tough ones? How convenient for Bush there.

Its still a litmus test no matter how you look at it.

Irrelevant. And if you're cutting Bush this slack now, I hope to see you saying the same thing in every thread about Kerry not answering a question.

In this case it is which is why he didn't follow through with the thought. I wish he did but that would've been a bad political move and even I would've called him on it. Instead, I applaud him for changing course.

Yes, but he still looked foolish. The damage had already been done, and granted he had to play damage control, but it was compounded by him having to switch course in the middle. A politically astute person wouldn't even have started on that course. So applaud him all you want. I found it absolutely hilarious.

Additionally, I thought Bush wasn't afraid to answer the tough questions...that people knew where he stood and that he didn't pander to political interests. Isn't that one of his supposed strong points? :rolleyes:

So candidates are exempted from answering the tough ones? How convenient for Bush there.

As stated, he is pro-life. He makes no bones about it. However, he does not have the authority to overturn it otherwise, it would've been overturned years ago. All he can do is appoint judges. It is the Judges choice wether or not to overturn it.

Irrelevant. And if you're cutting Bush this slack now, I hope to see you saying the same thing in every thread about Kerry not answering a question.

It is not irrelevent. I'm not cutting Bush slack. I never cut anyone slack. As for Kerry, I pounced on him about the Flu Shot question.

Yes, but he still looked foolish. A politically astute person wouldn't even have started on that course. So applaud him all you want. I found it absolutely hilarious.

But it was Funn :D

As stated, he is pro-life. He makes no bones about it. However, he does not have the authority to overturn it otherwise, it would've been overturned years ago. All he can do is appoint judges. It is the Judges choice wether or not to overturn it.

You're not answering the argument. He was asked if he WANTED to overturn Roe v. Wade. He responded: I won't appoint judges based on a litmus test. Kerry was far more courageous and up front about his position, so the Bush jumped up and down, pointed a finger and said, "He's got a litmus test! He's got a litmus test!" Bush looked completely feeble on that question, and his unwillingness to take the stance opposite Kerry showed.

It is not irrelevent. I'm not cutting Bush slack. I never cut anyone slack. As for Kerry, I pounced on him about the Flu Shot question.

Of course you're cutting him slack. You're acting like it's no big deal that he didn't answer the question because it was a "no win" question.

But it was Funn :D

It was completely weak-looking.

So is no one ever bothered by the fact that Kerry touts this illusive "plan" that he has tucked away in some vault somewhere, but either cannot or will not reveal anything remotely specific about it. I remember back in 2000 that Al Gore was a heck of a lot more specific about his plans than John Kerry has ever been, but I digress. As an undecided, I was curious about it, so after constantly hearing about this so-called "plan," I decided to look it up on the campaign website. Has anyone read this thing? He only gets specific maybe three times in the whole freakin' thing!

Bush has a luxury here that Kerry does not. We know how the Bush administration intends to run things. That's been happening for four years. It's well established. Not a single person in this whole country, from what I read this includes Kerry too, knows how John Kerry will act in office. His joke of a "plan" is little more than fluffy rhetoric. It makes clear what John Kerry intends to come as a result of his actions, but makes only a perfunctory attempt at explaining those actions themselves. Indeed, his "plan" often claims only that Kerry and Edwards have a plan to fix the problem! But my personal favorite has to be when he claims that the way to become independent of middle eastern oil is through good, old-fashioned "American ingenuity." I think Kerry is reverting back to his lawyer tendencies. He feels like he's prosecuting Bush here, and all he has to do is prove that Bush is wrong, but in doing so, he neglects the fact that he must also prove that he is right. In politics, you cannot simply assume that if one candidate is wrong, that the other must be right.

This discovery sealed the deal for me with Bush. I don't particularly enjoy a lot of the things he's done, but I tend agree with him on several issues. As for Kerry, I cannot knowingly elect a man into the nation's highest office because people simply tell me that he'll probably be better than the guy in there already. Especially not when the candidate himself cannot or even refuses to tell me why.

Best quote of the entire debate:
"It's against the law in the United States to hire people illegally."
- John Kerry

So is no one ever bothered by the fact that Kerry touts this illusive "plan" that he has tucked away in some vault somewhere, but either cannot or will not reveal anything remotely specific about it. I remember back in 2000 that Al Gore was a heck of a lot more specific about his plans than John Kerry has ever been, but I digress. As an undecided, I was curious about it, so after constantly hearing about this so-called "plan," I decided to look it up on the campaign website. Has anyone read this thing? He only gets specific maybe three times in the whole freakin' thing!

Bush has a luxury here that Kerry does not. We know how the Bush administration intends to run things. That's been happening for four years. It's well established. Not a single person in this whole country, from what I read this includes Kerry too, knows how John Kerry will act in office. His joke of a "plan" is little more than fluffy rhetoric. It makes clear what John Kerry intends to come as a result of his actions, but makes only a perfunctory attempt at explaining those actions themselves. Indeed, his "plan" often claims only that Kerry and Edwards have a plan to fix the problem! But my personal favorite has to be when he claims that the way to become independent of middle eastern oil is through good, old-fashioned "American ingenuity." I think Kerry is reverting back to his lawyer tendencies. He feels like he's prosecuting Bush here, and all he has to do is prove that Bush is wrong, but in doing so, he neglects the fact that he must also prove that he is right. In politics, you cannot simply assume that if one candidate is wrong, that the other must be right.

This discovery sealed the deal for me with Bush. I don't particularly enjoy a lot of the things he's done, but I tend agree with him on several issues. As for Kerry, I cannot knowingly elect a man into the nation's highest office because people simply tell me that he'll probably be better than the guy in there already. Especially not when the candidate himself cannot or even refuses to tell me why.


*sigh* What "plan" are you referring to? I've read John Kerry's plans on his website, and they seem plenty specific. Yes, he doesn't have a fully written budget proposal, but he gives at least as many specifics as Bush does.

And while we're discussing logically analyzing the situation, let's analyze your assertion that because Bush did things a certain way for 4 years, he'll keep doing them exactly the same way. Why do you think that's true? Just because? It seems like you don't care about what Bush is saying in this election or the specifics of his plans for the next 4 years, because you just assume it'll be the same. Sorta sloppy, wouldn't you say?

As for your flawed assertion that the flu vaccine is a non-issue, I might remind you that the death rate from flu and flu complications is a significant problem, particularly among the elderly, young and those with respitory ailments. In fact this source http://www.rockford.uic.edu/HSR/Win...byracecause.htm shows the death rate higher than homicide, suicide and HIV put together.

Except that it's grouped with pneumonia, which is fatal many times, unlike the flu. Using a study mixing the two in order to say that the flu kills more people than AIDS would certainly be a "flawed assertion", wouldn't you say?

BUSH: In all due respect, I‘m not so sure it‘s credible to quote leading news organizations about—oh, never mind.

Sounds to me like he was just trying to insinuate something without saying it outright and being called on it. Sadly, he probably looked good from it.

In politics, you cannot simply assume that if one candidate is wrong, that the other must be right.

So you'd vote for someone who you knew was wrong rather than someone who might be wrong?

*sigh* What "plan" are you referring to? I've read John Kerry's plans on his website, and they seem plenty specific. Yes, he doesn't have a fully written budget proposal, but he gives at least as many specifics as Bush does.

And while we're discussing logically analyzing the situation, let's analyze your assertion that because Bush did things a certain way for 4 years, he'll keep doing them exactly the same way. Why do you think that's true? Just because? It seems like you don't care about what Bush is saying in this election or the specifics of his plans for the next 4 years, because you just assume it'll be the same. Sorta sloppy, wouldn't you say?

It would seem that we are indeed referring to the same plan, the one posted on the campaign website for John Kerry. As for it being specific, I have to strongly disagree. What I am talking about is how he intends to accomplish the items that his plan promises. I know what he wants to do, and it's all quite idealistic and very nice sounding but seems a bit hard to accomplish. In my mind, that automatically raises the question of how. Since we've both read the same plan, you know how it's broken down with the large issues dissected into smaller units for easier explanation. Here's an example of one such point he has raised on health care:

"Cut Waste And Inefficiency

"Today, approximately 25 percent of health care costs are wasted on paperwork and administrative processing. The Kerry-Edwards plan harnesses American ingenuity to cut waste, save billions, and take new steps to ensure patient privacy."

Wait a second... isn't this the Kerry-Edwards plan that I'm reading? Did it just refer to itself as the solution? But it doesn't actually specify a solution! It's the same as him saying in the debates (which he did numerous times) that the president hasn't done it, but he's got a plan to fix it. But where is this plan if it's not actually in THE plan?

Let's move on to the economy, shall we? The Kerry-Edwards plan reads:

"Invest In The Jobs Of Tomorrow

"Today, businesses are harnessing new technology to manufacture energy-efficient cars, high-grade steel, advanced plastics and other new products. And this requires a bigger, skilled labor force to make them. John Kerry and John Edwards believe we should invest in these jobs and invest in the people who will fill them."

So we're going to invest in these people, eh John? I understand that you believe we should, but that doesn't tell me how you intend to do it. It's an empty claim as far as I can tell.

And if that's not enough evidence, let's touch on a bit of homeland security:

"Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats

"John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions."

Again with this whole "we have a plan, trust us" motiff. If you have such a plan, why not put it IN the plan? Even if it's sensitive information, you could at least give us some idea of what you're talking about.

As a voter, I want to know what you intend to do, not what you hope will come of it. This mindless rhetorical fluff seems to continue without any end in sight. Sure there are some numbers thrown out there in regards to tax breaks an whatnot, but even those tend to make me think that it's going to be nearly impossible to start all the new programs that are not specified in the plan but are surely going to be needed to implement these grand ideas. And that doesn't even begin to take into account balancing the budget and reducing the deficit.

And as long as we are analyzing this situation logically, what make you think Bush will differ from the course he's already taking? Nothing he has told the American public makes me think otherwise, and Democrats are always harping about how he won't even back down once he's made a mistake. I suppose that's all a matter of believability, but then again so is having faith in John Kerry's plan.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way ignoring what Bush has to say, nor do I think he is God's gift to humanity. The thing is, he specifically states that he intends to continue his policies of the past four years if reelected. I just think that as an incumbent he has less to explain about his policies than the relatively unknown Senator Kerry. In my opinion, Kerry needs to spend a little less time disproving Bush and little more proving himself. As it is, he's lost at least one undecided to the Republicans.

And a report is out there that ABC and NBC are both rooting for Kerry. Yea you can make the claim that FNC is rooting for Bush and that study shows that out. I actually applaud this study too btw.

Well to be fair, more educated people are voting for Kerry while more uneducated people favour Bush. It's been a long tradition that the rich & the stupid tend to vote Republican. So if you're not rich... ;)

So you'd vote for someone who you knew was wrong rather than someone who might be wrong?

When did I ever assert that President Bush was wrong? I didn't say that, Kerry did. But as an actual response to your question (something that both candidates could do once in a while :D ), I would vote for someone who was wrong on some things and right on others rather than someone who gives me no real reason to believe that they are right on almost anything.

And by the way, the question of right and wrong in politics is largely open to interpretation. It all depends upon whom you are inclined to believe. When you aren't partial to either, the competing claims tend to cancel out and all you're left with is the competing policies and the methods by which you will carry them out. Since Kerry doesn't give me much of anything to go on there, I'm left with almost nothing.

Preface: Long post with many quotes ahead. If you don't care to read it, don't. But I'd encourage anyone who thinks Damanoverthere is right to read through this.

It would seem that we are indeed referring to the same plan, the one posted on the campaign website for John Kerry. As for it being specific, I have to strongly disagree. What I am talking about is how he intends to accomplish the items that his plan promises. I know what he wants to do, and it's all quite idealistic and very nice sounding but seems a bit hard to accomplish. In my mind, that automatically raises the question of how. Since we've both read the same plan, you know how it's broken down with the large issues dissected into smaller units for easier explanation. Here's an example of one such point he has raised on health care:

"Cut Waste And Inefficiency

"Today, approximately 25 percent of health care costs are wasted on paperwork and administrative processing. The Kerry-Edwards plan harnesses American ingenuity to cut waste, save billions, and take new steps to ensure patient privacy."

Wait a second... isn't this the Kerry-Edwards plan that I'm reading? Did it just refer to itself as the solution? But it doesn't actually specify a solution! It's the same as him saying in the debates (which he did numerous times) that the president hasn't done it, but he's got a plan to fix it. But where is this plan if it's not actually in THE plan?

Okay, so what about these quotes from the Kerry-Edwards health care plan on the website:

Cutting Administrative Costs In Half With A New "Technology Bonus"

The annual cost of health care today is $1.4 trillion. Approximately 25 percent is spent on non-medical costs - principally the costs of the paper work burden, including those costs associated with the preparation, submission, calculation and payment of bills. This is orders of magnitude more than for any other industry. Whereas settling a single transaction in health care can cost as much as $12 to $25, banks have cut their costs to less than a penny per transaction by using modern information technology. The Veterans Administration has found that through improved technology, doctors can pull entire medical records (that previously cost $9) instantaneously and without cost. Other purchasers have had similar results. John Kerry's Technology Bonus would:

* Ensure that all Americans Have Secure, Private Electronic Medical Records by the Year 2008. Most Americans have had the experience of repeated testing due to unavailable results or failure to transfer records. Universal electronic medical records will dramatically reduce waste in medical care through a reduction of redundant and unnecessary tests. In addition to cost controls, computerized medical records and decision support software can also reduce serious medical errors by as much as 88 percent.

* Assure Federal Government Adopts Modern Computerized Methods for Health Care Transactions That Are Widely Used in Other Industries. These costs are from the magnitude of transactions that occur every day that range from requesting a medical record, submitting a bill, or scheduling an appointment - most of which still occur on paper.

* Require Private Sector Insurers to Use Advanced Systems. Private insurers would have to use this simplified technology standard as a condition of doing business with the Federal government (Medicare, Medicaid, and the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program) to make health care transactions less costly.

Seems fairly specific to me.

Let's move on to the economy, shall we? The Kerry-Edwards plan reads:

Let's.

"Invest In The Jobs Of Tomorrow

"Today, businesses are harnessing new technology to manufacture energy-efficient cars, high-grade steel, advanced plastics and other new products. And this requires a bigger, skilled labor force to make them. John Kerry and John Edwards believe we should invest in these jobs and invest in the people who will fill them."

So we're going to invest in these people, eh John? I understand that you believe we should, but that doesn't tell me how you intend to do it. It's an empty claim as far as I can tell.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/manufacturing.pdf

Again, you're just reading the blurbs that generally describe Kerry's plans. As I've said to many others, look at the links to the .pdf files on the right hand side of the page, instead of reading for 5 seconds and assuming that's all there is.

And if that's not enough evidence, let's touch on a bit of homeland security:

Can we? Excellent.

"Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats

"John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions."

Again with this whole "we have a plan, trust us" motiff. If you have such a plan, why not put it IN the plan? Even if it's sensitive information, you could at least give us some idea of what you're talking about.

As a voter, I want to know what you intend to do, not what you hope will come of it. This mindless rhetorical fluff seems to continue without any end in sight. Sure there are some numbers thrown out there in regards to tax breaks an whatnot, but even those tend to make me think that it's going to be nearly impossible to start all the new programs that are not specified in the plan but are surely going to be needed to implement these grand ideas. And that doesn't even begin to take into account balancing the budget and reducing the deficit.

Try looking at the links (again) on the right hand side of the pages on homeland security and national security. They outline some pretty specific steps that will be taken.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/newthreats.html

or

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0601b.pdf

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way ignoring what Bush has to say, nor do I think he is God's gift to humanity. The thing is, he specifically states that he intends to continue his policies of the past four years if reelected. I just think that as an incumbent he has less to explain about his policies than the relatively unknown Senator Kerry. In my opinion, Kerry needs to spend a little less time disproving Bush and little more proving himself. As it is, he's lost at least one undecided to the Republicans.

Well, don't take this the wrong way (because you're not the only one doing this, nor do I think you're an idiot), but you haven't done enough work to know what Kerry's plans are. Yes, you briefly looked at his website, but there's a lot more information there than you've seen. Hopefully, you'll give these details the attention they deserve and then make your choice based on the merits of each candidate's respective plans and records.

Well to be fair, more educated people are voting for Kerry while more uneducated people favour Bush. It's been a long tradition that the rich & the stupid tend to vote Republican. So if you're not rich... ;)

I would think that if this were a hard, fast rule rather than a rash and outdated generalization, that the Republicans would win every election. Think about it, if the uneducated and the rich always voted Republican, and there is a direct realtionship between level of education and earned wealth, then only the middle class would vote Democrat. But then again, the same point can be raised in favor of the Democrats from the standpoint of the poor and educated.

Fact is, there are more moderates (or at least there were prior to the campaigning) than ever before in America who come from all walks of life. People are thinking more and more every year, and that at least is encouraging. :D

In this case, what Bush said was the answer to the question. It was a nice attempt to get him to say he will and then smacked him with saying that I won't have a litmus test for judges.

When he said he would not have a litmus test for judges, he contradicted this statement he made in the second debate:

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.

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.


The question the president answered about Roe v. Wade said he would not administer a litmus test for judicial appointments. Not a litmus test based on Roe v. Wade, and not a litmus test based on his own interpretation of the constitution.

The statements above contradict that assertation, especially when you consider that the Dred Scott case is right wing code for Roe v. Wade. If you don't believe me, read this article: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108083/

So not only did the president not answer the question he was asked, but he lied in the process.

Yes, you briefly looked at his website, but there's a lot more information there than you've seen. Hopefully, you'll give these details the attention they deserve and then make your choice based on the merits of each candidate's respective plans and records.

Mmk. I looked over everything you presented in you post. By the way, thanks for all that information and for taking the time to respond so thoroughly.

I can swallow my pride when I realize that I have made a mistake, and that's exactly what I intend to do here (but get ready for a pretty big BUT). I was misled by inadequate information regarding the Kerry-Edwards plan, and I am willing to concede the first and third points I made regarding the lack of specifics in regards to health care and military technologies. Again, thank you for making me aware of some much more thorough information. Personally, I blame a poorly designed website. :D

However, the information you provided me on the Kerry-Edwards plan for homeland security still maintains a distinct sense of vagueness. Overall, it sounds good, but it still harbors a distinct sense of political defensiveness by refusing to actually allot any amount of resources to any one of the given measures. It uses terms such as "will expand" without specifying how much or claims that certain areas of detection will "become more effective" without specifying what measures will ensure this growth. It also claims that we will "use technology" to improve boder security without specifying how. There are still a lot of loop holes in this one. Combine that with the fact that the site for George Bush (http://www.georgebush.com/Agenda/Chapter.aspx?ID=4 ) is more or less exactly the same and goes in to a bit more depth, so he's still got the edge on this one.

Here's the really big but though, the incredible amount of expansion our governemnt will undergo as a result of the Kerry-Edwards plan makes me downright skeptical that a simple tax hike for the rich will cover the expense of such ambition. I realize that this is a completely new issue. I understand that he intends to streamline the government, but in introducing so many new programs, it is foolish to claim that he will not ever raise taxes for those earning less than $200,000 a year. I don't trust that one little bit, especially after seeing what happened to my brother back in the 1990's. He paid so much into taxes, but what did that do for him? The guy couldn't even get food stamps because he didn't qualify for welfare. Someone from welfare told him that if he were black, he would have. But I digress, that is neither here nor there. I am not comforted at all by the fact that Kerry has been named the most liberal senator. And even he hasn't disputed that one. You say I should make my decision based on the plans and the records? Well I have compared the plans to the records, and it would seem to me that Bush's still has more validity than Kerry's. But then again, I guess that's just me.

John Kerry: "The war on terror is only about Osama Bin Laden."

John Kerry: "I will raise your taxes."

John Kerry: "I will create a 653 billion dollar national healthcare program that will force you and your children into debt."

John Kerry: "Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time, so we should give it to Al Qaeda."

John Kerry: "North Korea has nukes? I told you it was bad to elect Bush."
(North Korea got its first 2 bombs in 1994 under Clinton.)

John Kerry: "Seniors are too dumb to know what's good for them."

John Kerry: "No Child Left Behind needs more funding, so I am going to abolish this program even though it is successful."

John Kerry: "I am going to bring back the draft."

John Kerry: "I will impose a litmus test on all Supreme Court nominees and everyone else who wants to work for the federal government. They must all agree with and whole heartedly support my policies and political views."

John Kerry: "We need affirmative action cause women, blacks and minorities are incapable of thinking or making their own decisions."

John Kerry: "I will make the national dept quadruple by increasing the size of government and increasing federal regulations of people's personal lives."

John Kerry: "My faith is the only one that's valid."


George Bush: Iraq is going well, don't listen to the news, just me

George Bush: I am quoting John Kerry voting record wrong so you'll vote for me

George Bush: Yes my VP has a gay daughter, but dammit I really like that admendment

George Bush: Nuwlear, Nudlear, Nu.. ah forget it

George Bush: (repeats whatever John Kerry says, but in a negative way)

George Bush: I heard a rumor on the Internets

George Bush: Got Wood? (You know that would actually be a good solgan for Vigaria!)

George Bush: Its hard work, being the President is hard work, and yet my dad told me it was going to be cake walk

George Bush: N. Korea isn't important, Iraq is!

George Bush: Don't pay attention to Halliburton over there.

Mmk. I looked over everything you presented in you post. By the way, thanks for all that information and for taking the time to respond so thoroughly.

Not a problem at all.

I can swallow my pride when I realize that I have made a mistake, and that's exactly what I intend to do here (but get ready for a pretty big BUT). I was misled by inadequate information regarding the Kerry-Edwards plan, and I am willing to concede the first and third points I made regarding the lack of specifics in regards to health care and military technologies. Again, thank you for making me aware of some much more thorough information. Personally, I blame a poorly designed website. :D

I appreciate your willingness to admit you made a mistake. For what it's worth, I agree with you on the poorly designed nature of the website. I happen to be a professional researcher though, so I have some experience with sifting through a ton of crap to find the good stuff, so to speak.

However, the information you provided me on the Kerry-Edwards plan for homeland security still maintains a distinct sense of vagueness. Overall, it sounds good, but it still harbors a distinct sense of political defensiveness by refusing to actually allot any amount of resources to any one of the given measures. It uses terms such as "will expand" without specifying how much or claims that certain areas of detection will "become more effective" without specifying what measures will ensure this growth. It also claims that we will "use technology" to improve boder security without specifying how. There are still a lot of loop holes in this one. Combine that with the fact that the site for George Bush (http://www.georgebush.com/Agenda/Chapter.aspx?ID=4 ) is more or less exactly the same and goes in to a bit more depth, so he's still got the edge on this one.

Sure, I agree that Kerry's plan isn't legislation quality, nor is it specific as it could be. But in all honesty, I don't think that the specificity deficit indicates that Kerry's wouldn't be as effective, and I think the fact that Kerry will change our foreign policy to create less enemies for us more than compensates for any differential in the specifics.

Additionally, Kerry has other parts of his plan that impact homeland security (which are on his site), I just listed a couple. Those may answer your specific concerns.

Here's the really big but though, the incredible amount of expansion our governemnt will undergo as a result of the Kerry-Edwards plan makes me downright skeptical that a simple tax hike for the rich will cover the expense of such ambition. I realize that this is a completely new issue. I understand that he intends to streamline the government, but in introducing so many new programs, it is foolish to claim that he will not ever raise taxes for those earning less than $200,000 a year. I don't trust that one little bit, especially after seeing what happened to my brother back in the 1990's. He paid so much into taxes, but what did that do for him? The guy couldn't even get food stamps because he didn't qualify for welfare. Someone from welfare told him that if he were black, he would have. But I digress, that is neither here nor there. I am not comforted at all by the fact that Kerry has been named the most liberal senator. And even he hasn't disputed that one. You say I should make my decision based on the plans and the records? Well I have compared the plans to the records, and it would seem to me that Bush's still has more validity than Kerry's. But then again, I guess that's just me.

Well, here's the link to Kerry's economic plan (which includes proposed spending cuts and increases along with other stuff - the balance is on page 8 and 9)

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/economic_plan.pdf

I think that your distaste of Kerry because of his "liberalness" is in part due to the false connotation that is carried with the term liberal. It's a counterpoint to "conservative", yet that is held in nowhere the same disdain.

Additionally, I think it partially depends on how you view Kerry's liberalism. I think he's very much a fiscal conservative, or at least much further that way than a fiscal liberal. Additionally, Bush gets the liberal label on finances in my book. The budgetary deficits we're running at right now are simply outrageous, and the notion of cutting taxes while increasing spending during a war strikes me as completely irresponsible.

As for social conservatism, I think that while Bush certainly seems to embody this, he has deviated far from the conservative notion of states' rights. His attempt to ban same-sex marriages is a direct snub to the states and their ability to handle that issue, simply because of Bush's personal faith. Additionally, Bush's Patriot Act (which he still defends in its entirety) gives government unprecedented access into our personal lives, privacy, and circumvents many of the constitutional safeguards as long as someone somewhere can hint that terrorism is involved.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a reasoned discussion with you.

Well to be fair, more educated people are voting for Kerry while more uneducated people favour Bush. It's been a long tradition that the rich & the stupid tend to vote Republican. So if you're not rich... ;)

Ok Steph, You wanna play statistics, lets play statistics! *Takes out his government book*

I will give you the money factor!

People making over 75,000 voted Bush in the last election. They also normally vote Republican! Between $30,000 and $49,999 was about split and from less than $15,000 to $29,999 voted Democrat.

Now here's something that surprised me! You ready? here we go!

Those that felt that the Financial Situation is better today--VOTED DEMOCRAT! Those that felt it was the same today was split and those that felt it was worse, voted slightly Republican!

Now I'm going to skip religion because we pretty much know how they vote anyway and that brings us to *drum roll please* EDUCATION!

Post-graduate educated people normally vote Democrat and that is how it went in 2000 for Gore! Those that are College Graduate and with some college was split between the two candidates. Those of HighSchool Graduates went slightly to Bush and those that have no Highschool deploma voted GORE!! So I guess that rich and Stupid just got knocked out of the park!

Source of Info is the Voter News Service, November 8, 2000

In my Government Book, it has a nice graph with it broken down. I will try to find it and post it for you.

Ok Steph, You wanna play statistics, lets play statistics! *Takes out his government book*

I will give you the money factor!

People making over 75,000 voted Bush in the last election. They also normally vote Republican! Between $30,000 and $49,999 was about split and from less than $15,000 to $29,999 voted Democrat.

Now here's something that surprised me! You ready? here we go!

Those that felt that the Financial Situation is better today--VOTED DEMOCRAT! Those that felt it was the same today was split and those that felt it was worse, voted slightly Republican!

Now I'm going to skip religion because we pretty much know how they vote anyway and that brings us to *drum roll please* EDUCATION!

Post-graduate educated people normally vote Democrat and that is how it went in 2000 for Gore! Those that are College Graduate and with some college was split between the two candidates. Those of HighSchool Graduates went slightly to Gore and those that have no Highschool deploma voted GORE!! So I guess that rich and Stupid just got knocked out of the park!

Source of Info is the Voter News Service, November 8, 2000

In my Government Book, it has a nice graph with it broken down. I will try to find it and post it for you.

Get some sources, kiddo, you're lying as hell and ya know it.I guess that you have a poster in your room with your grandparent shaking hands with your idol Goebels :sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :mad: :upyours:

Get some sources, kiddo, you're lying as hell and ya know it.I guess that you have a poster in your room with your grandparent shaking hands with your idol Goebels :sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :mad: :upyours:

Actually dude, it isn't made up facts. I have it right here in front of me IN MY GOVERNMENT BOOK!!

The Struggle for Democracy Sixth Edition
By Edward S. Greenberg and
Benjamin I. Page

The graph is on page 294 Figure 10.4 Presidential Vote in 2000, by Social Group!

It was done by the Voter News Service on November 8, 2000

Get some sources, kiddo, you're lying as hell and ya know it.I guess that you have a poster in your room with your grandparent shaking hands with your idol Goebels :sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :mad: :upyours:
You're right, he is lying. High School graduates went to Bush, not Gore. Apart from that he's right.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html

Ok. I checked out the economic plan, and for the most part it looks good. A couple of items still confuse me, though.

First, the budget is listed out for 10 years. It seems kind of silly to me to plan that far ahead seeing as there's no way Kerry will be in office in 10 years and also that an awful lot can change in that time span. But that's a moot point because I hear tell that's how they do these things.

Second and more importantly, I don't see anywhere on the page where it sets aside any money to run the government. I know a good bit of that is included in these new initiatives, but there is a certain amount of the beaurocracy such as the FBI, CIA, and other such three-letter departments that generate a running cost per annum that has to be accounted for. Where does that come from? What about military spending and welfare payments and other things of that kind? Those items may already be factored in elsewhere, but I seriously doubt it. Everything he's proposing that's NEW is paid for, but where are all the old things? I'm really interested in seeing how he's going to balance THAT.

You might want to check out an article I found here (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmopi/is_200404/ai_kepm435702). You may have to enter you e-mail address to read it, and if you'd rather not, I'd be more than happy to e-mail it to you. But basically, the article outlines how Kerry is handing us the same tax package as Clinton did, and we all know how that worked out. :rolleyes: So much for the promise of no higher taxes. Right now, analysts at the National Taxpayers Union claim that Kerry's proposed budget is ultimately going to cost us $276.88 billion dollars per year. That's opposed to the projected $400 billion the tax roll-backs would save us over ten years. Right there is a projected $2.369 trillion dollar budget shortfall over 10 years under this plan. I think it's pretty likely that the second "read my lips" promise or better yet, the "Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera" promise is pretty unlikely.

Other articles saying more or less the same thing can be found everywhere. I'm not sure of some of their biases, but the sheer quantity of those claiming his budget will not balance far outnumbers those that claim it will. I know that's not the best of indicators, but I don't have time now for a gross amount of webcrawling.

Bottom line: I'm still not convinced that my taxes won't go up if Kerry is put into office.

A person's record DOES matter. It is one of the most important things. It tells you what a person will do when the chips are down. All the verbage and plans are nice, but what did you do when it counted? Kerry is running from his own record. A man should stand on his record. The man has no integrety, therefore, a loser.
That summation is exponentiated in Bush, therefore.
Examples would be fine, but DEFINITELY redundant, at least on this forum.

You're right, he is lying. High School graduates went to Bush, not Gore. Apart from that he's right.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html

Not according to this grapic I have in front of me in a Government TextBook!

Those with a High school graduate went a tad for Bush but those that didn't graduate highschool went for Gore!

BTW: It is COPYRIGHTED 2003

I really don't think we should rely on Bush's words about Kerry records. Because Factcheck.ORG states that Bush numbers on Kerry voting records are skewed.
... you mean the SAME site Cheney cited in the Edwards/Cheney debate, the one that he got wrong in one sentence?
Maybe the one also that points out the repub/democrat factual discrepencies at about a 5 or 6:1 ratio in favor of the dems?
Woohoo!

Well to be fair, more educated people are voting for Kerry while more uneducated people favour Bush. It's been a long tradition that the rich & the stupid tend to vote Republican. So if you're not rich... ;)
Now come on guys, we all know she's not biased... so this must be true :rolleyes:

Now come on guys, we all know she's not biased... so this must be true :rolleyes:

I just proved she is wrong! I have the stats here in my government Textbook. If I had a scanner here at the University, I would scan it and post it but since I can't......

Not according to this grapic I have in front of me in a Government TextBook!

Those with a High school graduate went a tad for Bush but those that didn't graduate highschool went for Gore!

BTW: It is COPYRIGHTED 2003
Then I think you mistyped something... :p

High school graduate went a tad for Bush
HighSchool Graduates went slightly to Gore

I just proved she is wrong! I have the stats here in my government Textbook. If I had a scanner here at the University, I would scan it and post it but since I can't......
yea, you did mistype that part about highschool graduates..
and I guess you didnt get my [/sarcasm]

Not according to this grapic I have in front of me in a Government TextBook!

Those with a High school graduate went a tad for Bush but those that didn't graduate highschool went for Gore!

BTW: It is COPYRIGHTED 2003

Life Lesson #1: Never trust the government.

... you mean the SAME site Cheney cited in the Edwards/Cheney debate, the one that he got wrong in one sentence? No, he cited factcheck.com, not .org. Very different sites.


Maybe the one also that points out the repub/democrat factual discrepencies at about a 5 or 6:1 ratio in favor of the dems?
Woohoo! Again, factcheck.ORG is fair in every sense of the word. Factcheck.COM isn't, so you might be thinking of that (wow, cheney made quite the mistake), but factcheck.org is. So either you are thinking of the wrong one, or republicans make a lot more factual discrepancies than democrats.

I haven't deciphered a question out of your messages for the last few pages. Go back and read the summary of the responses I posted pages ago, and someone else pages before that. It's going on 5 pages, and I'm done repeating myself/trying to decipher your "logic" (which seems to come down to "How can I reframe the same tired question to make me right?").
To save you a little time, if i may, Anbari ...
within the last week the logical pursuit in discourse had been hijacked to the point of someone relating TheOneRule's responses equitable with Clinton saying "depends on your definition of 'is' ..."
It's probably not worth it.

yea, you did mistype that part about highschool graduates..
and I guess you didnt get my [/sarcasm]

OH I got your sarcasm! ANd your right about it too! LOL

Then I think you mistyped something...

I apologize.

High School grads went to Bush Slightly but those that did not graduate highschool voted Gore.

That is what I wanted to say last time.

No, he cited factcheck.com, not .org. Very different sites.

Again, factcheck.ORG is fair in every sense of the word. Factcheck.COM isn't, so you might be thinking of that (wow, cheney made quite the mistake), but factcheck.org is. So either you are thinking of the wrong one, or republicans make a lot more factual discrepancies than democrats.
Well, i know what i said. I guess i should've put a smiley face on it like i am on this one, maybe you'll catch the drift. ;)

A nod's as good as a wink ....

"Sin" is archaic?!? Maybe that's the problem with this country - and the world - today. People aren't concerned about doing what's right because there is no idea of right and wrong anymore. "Sin" is not archaic. It's just that, unfortunately, too many people aren't concerned with whether they sin or not. The "do whatever you want without worrying about the consequences" attitude has brought down the U.S. society. Doing the moral thing used to be the goal of this country. Morality, today, is something which is vanishing in our world. So maybe "sin" is a word that people should start using more often.
For the record, my understanding of "sin" is summatable as (and shouldn't be surpassed by) the deliberate disobedience of the will of "God".
As clear as it is to all who read every DIFFERENT book using similar principles and names and sketchy historical texts ....
As clear as it might ever be what sin is.
So for fairness' sake, do you posit that republican morals and democrat morals in this forum/context are arguable on the same plate, with irrefutable truth as the bottom line?
I'm just asking and not arguing that one is more "moral" than another ... unless i were to define the theory of "morality", but that would be somewhat of a distraction ....

I don't really have an opinion on who won. And I don't trust those little polls they put up after the debate because, like my mom said, she didn't vote in that poll, my dad didn't vote in that poll, a lot of people didn't vote in that poll, so I think it pretty much meant nothing. Personally, I'm still leaning towards Bush, but that's just my opinion.

Not a problem at all.



I appreciate your willingness to admit you made a mistake. For what it's worth, I agree with you on the poorly designed nature of the website. I happen to be a professional researcher though, so I have some experience with sifting through a ton of crap to find the good stuff, so to speak.



Sure, I agree that Kerry's plan isn't legislation quality, nor is it specific as it could be. But in all honesty, I don't think that the specificity deficit indicates that Kerry's wouldn't be as effective, and I think the fact that Kerry will change our foreign policy to create less enemies for us more than compensates for any differential in the specifics.

Additionally, Kerry has other parts of his plan that impact homeland security (which are on his site), I just listed a couple. Those may answer your specific concerns.



Well, here's the link to Kerry's economic plan (which includes proposed spending cuts and increases along with other stuff - the balance is on page 8 and 9)

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/economic_plan.pdf

I think that your distaste of Kerry because of his "liberalness" is in part due to the false connotation that is carried with the term liberal. It's a counterpoint to "conservative", yet that is held in nowhere the same disdain.

Additionally, I think it partially depends on how you view Kerry's liberalism. I think he's very much a fiscal conservative, or at least much further that way than a fiscal liberal. Additionally, Bush gets the liberal label on finances in my book. The budgetary deficits we're running at right now are simply outrageous, and the notion of cutting taxes while increasing spending during a war strikes me as completely irresponsible.

As for social conservatism, I think that while Bush certainly seems to embody this, he has deviated far from the conservative notion of states' rights. His attempt to ban same-sex marriages is a direct snub to the states and their ability to handle that issue, simply because of Bush's personal faith. Additionally, Bush's Patriot Act (which he still defends in its entirety) gives government unprecedented access into our personal lives, privacy, and circumvents many of the constitutional safeguards as long as someone somewhere can hint that terrorism is involved.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a reasoned discussion with you.
You rock.

I have been intrigued by Corneliu's signature with the link about Kerry's health care plan so I went and checked it out. It links to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.

Now, Harry Shearer always says that when you see the word "Foundation" you should follow the money. I found out that by far the largest donors to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation are 3 very conservative philanthropic foundations (http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=1129)

I'm not saying the NTUF's economists are wrong. I'm not an economist so I don't know, but Kerry has economists who say he can pull off his health care plan. The important thing is to know who is paying all these "experts". They're certainly not working for free.

I have been intrigued by Corneliu's signature with the link about Kerry's health care plan so I went and checked it out. It links to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.

Now, Harry Shearer always says that when you see the word "Foundation" you should follow the money. I found out that by far the largest donors to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation are 3 very conservative philanthropic foundations (http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=1129)

I'm not saying the NTUF's economists are wrong. I'm not an economist so I don't know, but Kerry has economists who say he can pull off his health care plan. The important thing is to know who is paying all these "experts". They're certainly not working for free.
Agreed. You rock.

I have been intrigued by Corneliu's signature with the link about Kerry's health care plan so I went and checked it out. It links to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.

Now, Harry Shearer always says that when you see the word "Foundation" you should follow the money. I found out that by far the largest donors to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation are 3 very conservative philanthropic foundations (http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=1129)

I'm not saying the NTUF's economists are wrong. I'm not an economist so I don't know, but Kerry has economists who say he can pull off his health care plan. The important thing is to know who is paying all these "experts". They're certainly not working for free.
BRAVO to you!!

You do exactly what I have started to do, and that is check out the links or check the "about us" links. The reason being that there is way too much disinformation being distributed in these threads. So many people try to pass off biased threads as unbiased info, and to me, that does a disservice to all concerned.

Also, there is a tendency for certain individuals to post links to "hate" and "smear propaganda". The sad part is that some of these individuals take these links as being gospel, and they try to spread it to others and poisin the mind.

So I say to you, keep up the good work and perhaps honesty can become a reality and the world will be better for it.

As for your flawed assertion that the flu vaccine is a non-issue, I might remind you that the death rate from flu and flu complications is a significant problem, particularly among the elderly, young and those with respitory ailments. In fact this source http://www.rockford.uic.edu/HSR/Winnebago%20County/winndeathsbyracecause.htm shows the death rate higher than homicide, suicide and HIV put together.

In contrast to suicide, the flu is mostly deadly to the elder. Elder people who die are good for the economy because theyr'e only a burden for society (economically speaking). IOW that is not an economic problem, its a social problem at best. One with low priority if i might say so, precisely because its economic resolutions. I'm quite sure both Bush and the French government agree with me, its just that they don't admit it.

Or are those non-issues as well?

No, but your solutions are.

In contrast to suicide, the flu is mostly deadly to the elder. Elder people who die are good for the economy because theyr'e only a burden for society (economically speaking). IOW that is not an economic problem, its a social problem at best. One with low priority if i might say so, precisely because its economic resolutions. I'm quite sure both Bush and the French government agree with me, its just that they don't admit it.


And young children.

Four new polls are out there!

ABCNews/WP has Bush up 50 to 47 Percent to 1
Zogby has Bush 48 to 44 to 1
TIPP has Bush 48 to 45 to 2
Rasmussen 48 to 46

And young children.

I wouldn't argue the world is in need for children.

In contrast to suicide, the flu is mostly deadly to the elder. Elder people who die are good for the economy because theyr'e only a burden for society (economically speaking). IOW that is not an economic problem, its a social problem at best. One with low priority if i might say so, precisely because its economic resolutions. I'm quite sure both Bush and the French government agree with me, its just that they don't admit it.



No, but your solutions are.
don't you know anything silly?
Its become a proven fact in the bioscientific community that people who are over 100 are healthy and stronger than people in their 80's and 90's. They are also less likely to die. Most studies show that people over 100 tend to go back into the work force (though it is unknown why people would want to work if they didn't have to.)
This was in a special edition of the Scientific American. Volume 14 number 3.

don't you know anything silly?
Its become a proven fact in the bioscientific community that people who are over 100 are healthy and stronger than people in their 80's and 90's. They are also less likely to die. Most studies show that people over 100 tend to go back into the work force (though it is unknown why people would want to work if they didn't have to.)
This was in a special edition of the Scientific American. Volume 14 number 3.
Course that's because all the weaklings and genetic undesirables die out before they can reach 100. Hence the 100 year olds and beyond represent the best of the human gene pool.

As for your flawed assertion that the flu vaccine is a non-issue, I might remind you that the death rate from flu and flu complications is a significant problem, particularly among the elderly, young and those with respitory ailments. In fact this source http://www.rockford.uic.edu/HSR/Winnebago%20County/winndeathsbyracecause.htm shows the death rate higher than homicide, suicide and HIV put together.

Or are those non-issues as well?
You know, there was a post in this thread commenting on links offered as support to misleading assertations, but this one takes the cake.
Firstly, your statistics only cover the deaths in Winnebago County, Illinios in 1999. The sample group is far to small for the statistics to be applied on a national basis. And far too geographically isolated. It covers less than 3000 deaths total for god's sake!
Secondly, those statistics group the deaths from pneumonia and the flu into one convienient little number. Pneumonia is not the same thing as the flu, and is in fact a far more serious illness with a much higher mortality rate.