Hatrack seems a little slow tonight. Are we getting ready for the debate, watching all the commentary? Or are we doing other things, figuring it's a foregone conclusion?
Anyone going to be watching this? Anyone going to be there asking questions? Does anyone think Bush can bounce back from his spanking of last week?
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
This election is like a hockey game to me. It's on TV. I can't participate. And I'll only tune in when it's over to see the score. I don't need to see all the passes and fights and goals.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
My prediction is the same as my prediction last week: He won't likely win unless he can avoid talking about real issues, because the facts are against him. If he can make the debate only about character or about past records or about something trivial like facial expressions or one-liners, then he has a decent shot.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: He won't likely win unless he can avoid talking about real issues, because the facts are against him. If he can make the debate only about character or about past records
I have't looked at Kerry's voting record, but are you implying that Kerry's senate record is not a real issue?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Sorry, basking in the glow of the Red Sox Some things are more important than the fate of the free world
-Bok
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm watching Enterprise at the moment, but I'll be watching the debate (well, and reading).
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
At nine o'clock I will be:
a) On the phone to my parents b) Watching the debate c) Writing an assignment, one of many due next week. d) Posting, probably.
I'm a busy person.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I have't looked at Kerry's voting record, but are you implying that Kerry's senate record is not a real issue?
Only insofar as it casts light on how the candidates would handle real issues. So far in this election voting records have rarely been used in this fashion, but rather as a method of trying to pin views the opposing candidate doesn't have on the opposing candidate, or as a smokescreen to distract from real issues. Kerry's vote on Iraq, for instance, might have real implications, but picking out occasions where Kerry opposed military spending over the last 20 years is more avoiding the issues.
[ October 08, 2004, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I'm watching the prestuff now, getting ready for it to start
damn, what about the abc scandal...the media is taking a beating during this election
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Noemon, check yo' email.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
There have only been two questions, but Bush looks 100% better than he did last week. I wouldn't say he's winning yet, but he doesn't look scared or confused. He looks comfortable and confident. I think he finally took it seriously this time.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Is John Kerry going to change every question to his favorite job statistics?
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
So far this is debate #1 redux.....
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I like the format of this debate much better. Bush is doing better, too. He sounds a little fresher than last week... a little better than Kerry...but I am DEFINITELY biased.
-Katarain
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I also think bush looks much better...but he looked good at the start of the last debate as well. It will be interesting to see if he can keep it up
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
He's bringing up Reagan and the Soviets to buttress his argument rather than the Nazis. Good. Much better analogy. Don't agree with it, but it's much more relevant.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Whoa: "That answer made me almost wanna scowl."
We're gonna be hearing that one over and over...
--j_k
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Do you all think it is a real disadvantage that Kerry has to use phrases like "I would have" and "I'm gonna"?
I don't see any way around it...but do you think it could have a real affect on the way undecideds vote?
(I can't believe there are still undecideds.)
-Katarain
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Bush,
quote: I hear there are rumors on the internets
How many internets are there? Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
lem, we're so used to his English foibles that it doesn't even matter.
I cannot believe he's trying to take credit for UAV's. That technology has been in development longer than his administration. He's just been, uh, lucky (?) enough to make an opportunity where it might be of use.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: Whoa: "That answer made me almost wanna scowl."
lol, I loved it...it is funny when he pokes fun at himself Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Well... there's the one we are on... and there's the one Gore invented...
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
fassle? what the **** is fassle?
and hten he invoked poland again
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! Not Poland! Why?!?! Why bring up Poland?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Well well well, getting touchy here.
--j_k
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Oh, that's "facile".
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Ah, so if you spend enough time in the administrative branch, you get to start claiming technology? That's sweet! I'm gonna claim those latex tags printed on garmets in place of regular tags. celia60 in 2016!
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Kat: Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
"we dub- Tripled..."
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
See how mad Bush got wanting to respond?? Totally interrupting the moderator... whoever it is... some news anchor. I can't keep them straight..
-Katarain
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
i thought he was gonna hit the mediator.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Mediator.. hehe... Gentleman... in your corners!
They're fiery...and feisty today, aren't they?
It's good entertainment. Since I'm already decided...
-Katarain
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
We're workin' hard... We're workin' evenings... Comin' in on the weekend.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! Not Poland! Why?!?! Why bring up Poland?
That's what I'm wondering too-- he shouldn't bring it up, since he really doesn't need to, (thirty nations total, remember?). He shouldn't anyway, since Poland says it was decieved and will be pulling out.
--j_k
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
he wants to make drugs cheaper by cutting down on the time between release and when generic competition can enter the market. um, yeah, that's a great way to stop research on new drugs.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
kerry is with it tonight, bush's tantrums are only hurting him but Kerry is keeping it together and i think it's boosting him pointwise in big ways...i hope.
Bush's constant interrupting is making me sick.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
See Ben, it's all about perspective.. I see it completely differently.
I like the way Bush is being so passionate and animated. And not just because it is entertaining.
I also don't like what Kerry is saying.
-Katarain
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
bush isnt following structure and rules set up and agreed to at the beginning of the debate, another example of how he's a cheating sleazy bastard...at least through these glasses of mine...
[ October 08, 2004, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
My my... see, what are the democrats going to do if Bush wins? (I won't say when, because that is entirely too arrogant and I can't see the future.)
I imagine 4 years of deep depression and moaning for them.
-Katarain
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
how so?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Passionate and animated? Half the time he doesn't even answer the question straight!
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
He is getting a little more agitated as the time goes on. He needs to take a 'lude and go back to how he was acting at the beginning. That being said, I still think he's holding his own far better than he did 8 days ago.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
Neither does Kerry...
[edit: responding to Syn]
[ October 08, 2004, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Mr.Funny ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Oh, and they're both guilty of changing the question to suit their pre-fab answers.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I just expect depression... disenfranchisement... sadness.. weeping... wailing... knashing of teeth...
I must admit, I'm only paying 1/2 attention to this. Got a book I have to read here.
I like Bush. I think he's doing the right thing in Iraq... so, his answers suit me fine.
He could perhaps do better, but I don't think answering questions in a particular way doesn't help if people don't agree on your position.
What I REALLY don't like is Kerry wanting to bow to the U.N. all over the place. That makes me sick.
-Katarain
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
He keeps saying Kerry's had 20 years in the senate and done nothing. Is that so bad compared to the mess he's managed to make in 4? That's like a strength.
Kerry hasn't said he wants to bow to the UN, he said we should have completely explored that option before deploying troops, and if possible get thier support.
[ October 08, 2004, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
My god, President Bush is getting his head handed to him. They are both doing much much better than the first debate; We're seeing President Bush at what I think may be his best and Senator Kerry is destroying him. If this continues, John Kerry's numbers are going to soar.
I can't even keep track of the points that John Kerry is scoring.
[ October 08, 2004, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Kerry certainly implies it. He's in love with the U.N. He wants to marry it. *kiss kiss*
Hehe. That's my childish reply.
-Katarain
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hmm. Somehow Kerry's policies towards Iraq seems a bit logical.. It seems like the US's troops are stretched too thin... Seems that way to me...
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Thanks for being such a great example of a Bush supporter.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Pshaw. Don't take it all so seriously.
Hey, has Kerry mentioned Vietnam or his service yet? I don't think I've heard it...
Impressive.
-Katarain
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Hey, a joke.
--j_k
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Indeed... by getting under my skin quite a bit... *Frustrated by politics*
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Don't take what the person in charge of deploying our troops, and signing legislation into law is saying seriously? Are you 12? (I'm sorry if I've just insulted any 12 year olds out there)
[ October 08, 2004, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm seeing the same thing as I did with the VPs.
"Your record STINKS!" "Speak for YOURSELF!"
hehe
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
What is an inner-city sore spot?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Well, Mostly, don't take ME seriously. I am a Bush supporter, but I'm not trying to convince anyone here. Why bother? You all are obviously so much more informed than I am and have already made up your minds.
So therefore, if my sense of irreverance offends you, please don't let it. It's not worth it, seriously.
And yeah... why get all stressed out about all of this? Do your best to convince as many voters as you can to vote for your candidate and vote for him yourself come election day. But don't have a stroke.
And no, I'm not 12. But if I were, does it matter how old I am?
-Katarain
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
President Bush is recouping, but he just lied his ass off about the environment. Edit: At least I'm reasonably sure he did. We'll see tommorow.
[ October 08, 2004, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
(((Katarain))) Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
it wasn't europe mr bush, it was japan...jackass.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I noticed that, McSquicky. I got to do do more research about that... Currently I have a whole stack of political books to read.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The Environment... that's one area where I really don't like the Republican stance.
We should be taking better care of our home.
-Katarain
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
quote: You all are obviously so much more informed than I am and have already made up your minds.
Excellent approach to communication.
And I suppose the only thing that matters about your age is if you are over 18 or not. I assure you, hatrack has had some brilliant people younger than that.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Is anyone going to ask about immigration or gay marriage?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
John Kerry's Red Bull looks like it's wearing off. His energy level is dropping and his message is getting boring.
George Bush has finally stopped whining and ranting. He's looking a lot more steady.
Oh oh, George Bush just used the 900,000 small business argument...Dick Cheney told the whole world about FactCheck.org. We know that's not right.
edit: The writing something down in the background while the other guy is talking is kinda pissing me off. I get it. You don't want to let people seee your facial expressions, but this writing crap is just insulting my intelligence.
[ October 08, 2004, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Did I hear Bush correctly? Did he call Kerry, Kennedy, when he was talking about the most liberal senator in Congress?
That was probably not a smart thing to do on Bush's part. Throwing around the 'liberal' label is like to piss people off who might otherwise vote for him as a 'Compassionate Conservative'.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
"Mr president, i think my privacy and rights are being stripped from me."
"Gee i hope you don't think that." Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: Excellent approach to communication.
Thank you. I was actually sincere about that. I read a lot on politics, but I don't make it a subject of study. I've been too busy partly, and the other part, I've studied the subject as much as I care to. The fact that most politically-minded hatrackers know more than me is just that--a FACT. Republicans, Democrats, and Independants. I know enough to be satisfied with my decision.
But please, you're attacking me because I made a joke about Kerry loving and wanting to marry the U.N. And then I LAUGHED and said that was my CHILDISH reply. So, I am the one who said my reply was childish in the first place. If you had been paying attention, you'd know that I have been joking around here. And my advice to you is: Lighten up. Take this as seriously as you want, but don't get all upset if people like me are making light jokes.
-Katarain
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
I'm not upset, just bewildered. Why are actually bothering to post?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'm adding another reply instead of editing...
You don't see me getting all upset about Ben calling the President names. But maybe that's because I've heard it so much.
-Katarain
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain Do your best to convince as many voters as you can to vote for your candidate and vote for him yourself come election day.
OK. Everybody vote Libertarian. I will Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
And you're also failing to appreciate my sense of sarcasm, but that's ok.
Are you old enough to vote.
And Kerry is doing something I hate. Using an individual's pain to try to create motivation. Stick with figures, dude.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Oh. Okay. Bewildered is better than upset.
Lower blood pressure.
I'm posting because my husband and I are watching the debate, and sometimes I feel like making comments.
I may sound flippant... I may act like I'm flippant... I may SAY I'm flippant... but I care about this. I hate what Kerry stands for. He offends me. I post for the same reason the Bush-hater posts, I suppose...but I try to censor what I say. Perhaps I am relying on ....flippancy too much.. or my poor brand of humor.
-Katarain
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
John Kerry isn't displaying enough emotion for the embryonic stem-cell research question. It could be a winner, but he's too wooden and his delivery is too faltering. I don't feel he really cares about the people he's talking about. For a moral issue like this, especially one where President Bush is strong, you need to tweak the emotions.
Oddly enough, I don't think George Bush is coming across with enough emotion. He wasn't strong there either.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
i wonder if the president is gonna bring up his secret plan to fight inflation...
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
hey kat, what about kerry do you loathe?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
He's not going to choose a judge that will allow slavery? Does that mean I'll have to release my boy? That's it, I'm voting for Kerry.
Way to give the blandest and least controversial answer possible.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Yeah, I'm left unsatisfied by both of thier replies to stem cell research.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
...we have a secret plan to fight inflation ?!? Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
somebody better go tell the president.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
shhhh...it's a secret. If inflation finds out that we're going to fight, we're screwed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've been waiting for this. The John Kerry abortion/faith thing.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
He doesn't want to deny a poor person something that the constitution allows them to have? Does that mean that he's going to raise taxes to buy poor people Playstations and Rolexes?
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
i hope so. man that would be so COOL!
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
No, President Bush, it's not that simple.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed Is anyone going to ask about immigration or gay marriage?
Umm, nope.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
"words you've never heard of and some of 'em are big"
ummm WHAT?!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I really liked Kerry's abortion answer. I agreed with it. I thought it was good.
EDIT: Yeah, I want a same sex marriage and immigration discussion too.
[ October 08, 2004, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Q: When have you made a wrong decision?
A: Here is a list of my correct decisions. I'm such a genius. Oh, by the way, I'll take responsibility for my wrong decisions.
[ October 08, 2004, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
hes not giving 3 instances.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Antidisestablishmentarianism?
Oddly, in making a joke of the longest word I know, I may have actually answered Ben's question.
[ October 08, 2004, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I hate those questions... like in an interview.. "What is your biggest weakness?" Not that I don't think it's a valid question... I just don't like it.
Things I hate about Kerry?
His actions after Vietnam. His position on the U.N. and the U.S.
Those are the two BIG ones.
The fact that I agree more with republicans than democrats on most issues is part of it, too, of course.
-Katarain
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
DAMMIT! I'm wanting him to answer the mistakes question....i want my 3 instances. i want it i want it i want it.
(i learned how to throw a tantrum from this debate. yay bush yay)
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
There's a sound bite: "If he were in power... we'd all be better off."
[ October 08, 2004, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
I think you should amend the second one to your interpretation of his position on the UN.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
what position on the UN and the US?
and how can you loathe a man for serving his country only to come back and regret things he'd done and participated in?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Um...did Bush just address Kerry as "ma'am"?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Nah. I don't think I'll amend it. I hear what he's saying. I don't believe it.
If he committed crimes, he needs to pay for them.
-Katarain
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
but bush should be immune to consequences for criminal acts and/or negligence?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
No.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
No, he said, "man." I think he's been watching The Big Lebowski.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
President Bush screwed up majorly on the mistake question and now Senator Kerry is playing into his hand. All he needed to say is "You see. Even when directly asked about 3 specific mistakes he's made and what he's done to rectify them, my opponent can't admit that he even made any mistakes. I'll tell you right now, if you elect me, I will make mistakes, just as the President has made mistakes. The big difference between us is that, well, I think I'll make many fewer mistakes, but more importantly, I'm not going to hide from my mistakes. I'm going to admit them when I make them and I'm going to work to make them right. That's what adults do. That's what you have a right to expect from the person who is going to lead you. That's what the President has consistently failed to do."
Instead he said some tired old crap about Iraq, just like President Bush wanted him to.
*le sigh*
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
You've expressed an interpretation of what he's said about the UN on this thread. You don't like your interpretation of what he's said. I'm just asking you to recognize the bias.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
that was a heavy debate, and quite unfriendly.
[ October 08, 2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
and Noemon never answered my email. *sniff*
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
"Ooooh, now we shake hands..."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
President Bush did a better job in the closing statement. Senator Kerry's statement has been said so many times, it seems like even he isn't energized by it. George Bush connected with what he was saying.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Read my first post.
quote: but I am DEFINITELY biased.
-Katarain
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
I'm sorry, but that comfortable blanket statement doesn't preclude you from having to actually recognize where you are biased.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
So which was used more :
John Kerry :"I have a plan..."
or
President Bush : all uses of the word free/freedom
I'd say scripted keyword edge goes to the Pres, although Kerry's was more annoying.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Celia, check sakeriver's latest Hey Slash type thread.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
We're all biased. I do recognize mine.
I have my opinion based on what Kerry has said repeatedly about the U.N. Yes, he's softened his position, especially in the closing statement tonight, but I don't believe it. There's been too much before of him wanting to get permission through the U.N. What he said tonight was about trying to convince certain voters that he wasn't going to give up our rights to the U.N. But I do NOT buy it.
Go ahead and disagree with me. I don't wish to debate you. Say what you want.
Overall, I'd say Senator Kerry kicked him around in the first 30 minutes or so, but it was pretty much a wash after that. It's hard for me to call it, but I'd say, based off of John Kerry's start off, I'd call it for Senator Kerry at a moderate amount. However, the differential in his performance is really going hurt people's impressions of the debate. It would have been better to start off weak and end strong instead to start strong and end weak, which is what he did.
George Bush start out strong but was rocked back on his heels in the beginning of the debate and you could see his lack of composure in his jumping in, his whining starts, and his ranting. However, his performace was still much better than in the previous debate and he looked reasonably strong, despite these problem. When he regained his compsure, he did a very credible job of defending himself and overall came out as much steadier and personable than his opponent.
Considering that this was John Kerry's debate to win, I think overall for him, this wasn't a strong showing. I think he'll continue to gain ground in the polls, especially among undecideds, but he should have been able to work a very big jump out of this debate and I don't think he's going to get it. If he had continued as he did in the very beginning, I think we could have just about called this election. As it is, maybe 4 or 5% gain in the polls.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Thank you, once again, for being such a good Bush supporter. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oh. "Man". Yeah, I can see that. I wish he'd addressed him as 'ma'am". That would have been much funnier.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
This won't be like the last debate, I think - Bush definitely improved his performance. However, he still looked too angry - especially when he jumped up and argued with the moderator. Some voters will like that, but I think others will be put off. It's hard to say what the net effect is.
Kerry did just as well as last time, although I do think he somewhat missed a huge opportunity on the very last question. He should have came out and said point blank that Bush won't own up to mistakes and is thus not living in reality. Since that was the last question, I think it really would have been remembered.
Besides that, though, I think Kerry gave very good answers. He showed the complexity of his views but not in that meandering wish-washy sort of way he used too - especially on Iraq and the abortion issue.
Edit: And the judge question. That answer was EXACTLY how a judge should be picked, and I think most moderates realize it.
[ October 08, 2004, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I don't get the animosity toward Katarain. She's expressing opinions and making some jokes. I haven't seen any trolling behaviour. How did all this dogpiling start?
Where's the love? Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I agree with Tres. (I've been trying to write what I think for a while now, but Tres said it faster and better.)
I am biased though, in the fact that I agree with Kerry on more things, so I can't properly judge who is giving the better performance.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Fact Check is going to have a great time with this debate, and that just concerns what was said. What wasn't said were his three mistakes. Answer the lady's question. I know he is the president. I know that he takes the responsibility. But it would have been nice for him to acknowledge that it's the other people who pay the consequences.
I got a little miffed when he wanted to go after the moderator. It makes me wonder if he is that savvy at the negotiating table with other nations. Kerry scored huge points on Bush's inactivity with respect to the environment and the treaty.
And when Kerry started spinning out the reasons he voted against parental consent and partial birth abortions, it was the most cogent response to his argument for nuance that I have ever heard, then having Bush to come back with that Yes/No statement made Bush seem dangerously simple. Kerry also nailed the Supreme Court question, and I hope his spinners are using that for an argument about how to bring a divided country together. Bush didn't always come out incompetent. Kerry didn't always appear energetic, but come on, if it's a question of considered judgment, Kerry won by yards.
[ October 08, 2004, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Irami, yeah, that was a great response on Kerry's part. And one that I happen to agree with. Bush's response was an excellent illustration of one of my objections to Bush. The world is not black and white and treating it as such is dangerous.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah Tres, I agree with the judge thing, but he didn't come across like he meant it. It sounded like something that was good to say and not something that he was necessarily going to hold to. In other words, it sounded like a typical politician's promise. Had he done a credible job of conveying sincerity with this answer (especially tieing it together with the respect for the Consitution thing he did on the abortion question), it would have looked much better for him. As it was, it looked like, to me, at least, that he knew what the right thing to say was and we have a slim hope that he'd actually act according to that when the time comes.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Speed, thank you for the support and kind words. I'm just going to consider this over, but I would hate not to recognize what you said. So thanks.
-Katarain
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Uh, is two people a dogpile now?
And I think Ben and my questions are valid in trying to understand her opinion. I am certainly still bewildered.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The Judge question and President Bush's "Black and White" thing were the best parts of the later half of the debate for Senator Kerry. Since the Judge thing is actually one of the big issues of this campaign, I'm going to move my estimation of the debate more in favor of John Kerry. I still don't think he'll gain much more than 5% in the polls, but I think it will be a more lasting gain.
He ran into problems with the stem-cell research and the abortion questions, especially in the beginnings, because he seemed very uncomfortable discussing them. He said, "I really respect the beliefs behind these things." - and I believed him - but this was really the only times in the debate where he faltered, and pretty conspicuously so.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
That Speed is pretty cool, jah?
CNN had already debunked a few of the facts being thrown out in the second debate.
1. 97% of health insurance enrollees would be unaffeted by Kerry's plan, and the vast majority of healthcare would not be federally controlled, as Bush suggested.
2. Kerry's claims that there are 1.6 million fewer jobs after 4 years of the Bush administration is more like half that in some correction of the data. (Which I do not understand).
3. Bush's claims of 900,000 new small businesses is exaggerated according to this same analyst, using information from factcheck.org.
[ October 08, 2004, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Katarin... Give me one good reason to support Bush... Sorry to seem like I am attacking, but politics will drive me eventually to drinking moonshine. That's how frustrated I am.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
*Hands over the mason jar to Syn*.
"I haven't gone blind yet"...
*Poke Poke*
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Cool... A mason jar! Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Yeah, moonshine keeps better in mason jars than it does in the empty coffee cans...save them for when you have kinfolk come over...
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:2. Kerry's claims that there are 1.6 million fewer jobs after 4 years of the Bush administration is more like half that in some correction of the data. (Which I do not understand).
The 1.6 million is only including private jobs - jobs that aren't for the government. Bush massively increased government spending, so he created a bunch of government jobs that offset it to some degree.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
-Katarain
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
None of my friends are calling this for President Bush, even the pro-Bush people, some of whom called the last one a weak win for GW. Is this people's consensus or just a consequence of my limited sample size?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Dang. I kind of honestly wanted... detail... *Starved mind*
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Did that come across as a little patronizing to anyone else when Kerry said his tax increases would only apply to himself, Bush and the moderator? Like he can look at all those people and decide immediately that there aren't any doctors, lawyers or successful business owners in the room? In fact, if my figures are correct, nearly 1 in 10 people make $100,000 a year, which means that if two of those people are married, they'd be up for a tax hike. But Kerry didn't want to give them that much credit. "Don't worry, it's clear that none of you are as cool as I am, so I'm going to cut you a break. Someday if you learn to windsurf and marry a ketchup heiress, then you can be in my club."
[ October 08, 2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, Speed, I'm pretty sure you're reaching with that one.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm with Speed. It spooked me a little too. I can't imagine that those three in the room would be the only ones affected, but I think that everyone in the room will be positively affected by his plan.
I want to know about the Timber.
[ October 08, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Thanks Tres.
I caught the fact that there were 1.6 million private jobs lost, and that explanation answered my question before.
However, do enlistments in the military also offset this number? Are active recruits also considered government employees?
As far as who won the debate, my wife and I each meekly favored Bush by the end of the debate. I found Kerry to continually answer questions more succintly and with more polish and skill, especially in the first half of the debate. Bush finally found some questions that must have sounded familiar from his practice rounds, because he commanded the second half.
Strangely, I did not really appreciate Kerry's responses even though they were stated so well. I believed that I saw the true John Kerry in the last 30 second rebuttal in which he finally relaxed and stopped sounding so rehearsed in his earlier, more carefully answered repsonses.
And his candid nature, although brief, frightened me.
[ October 08, 2004, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Syn, I'm afraid you can't get what you seek from me. I don't know how to answer that question, except to say... if Bush stands for what you believe in, then vote for him. If Kerry doesn't stand for what you believe in, vote for Bush. But we are different people, with different values, with different beliefs.
I HATE debate. I hate having my views attacked and some points are scored against me because the other person is a better debater. I think debates are useless for really proving anything, really. And I also think we can look at the same set of "facts" and statistics and come up with completely different conclusions. Democrats and Republicans have been doing it for years, with other groups coming up with a dozen other interpretations.
I am voting for Bush because I support the war in Iraq, as nasty as war is. I am voting for Bush because I agree with the Republicans a lot more than I agree with the Democrats. I am voting for Bush because I don't trust what Kerry says. I am voting for Bush. I am leaving the persuading of other voters to other Bush supporters. At this point in my life, I am more concerned with other matters and I am not sure I would do a good job of convincing.
Besides, I highly doubt there are many true undecided people here--and if they are, they should be doing some research on their own.
I realize that many Kerry supporters can not understand why anyone could possibly support Bush. It bewilders them--maybe even makes them lose sleep. But what you need to understand is that over here, I can't understand why so many people support Kerry. I don't understand the liberal mind. I don't agree with it.
I'm against abortion in most instances. I'm against most gun control. I believe in our freedoms and I see that being taken away under a liberal government, ironically.
So, that's why I'm voting for Bush. But I am not interested in debating it. I tell you this because for some reason you seem to want to know, but I must say, I can't help suspecting you're asking simply to argue with my reasons and debate with me.
Am I wrong?
-Katarain
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The thing that bothers me about that whole thing is that, the effects on small businesses is an important question and an apparent hole in Senator Kerry's plan. The problem is that, by making it sound like a bigger thing than it is by using numbers that I'm pretty darn sure he knows are incorrect, President Bush allows him to dodge that question by focusing on the irrelevant part of it.
From FactCheck:
quote:A better figure comes from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which recently calculated that the Kerry tax increase would hit roughly 471,000 small employers.
I'm very concerned with John Kerry's proposed economic "plans" because to be honest, they don't sound very credible to me. He seems to be making promises that I don't think he'll be able to keep and the stuff from his website doesn't really meet my scrutiny either.
[ October 08, 2004, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Of course you aren't wrong. Of course we're going to argue with your reasons. But not for some arbitrary points in a debate format. (or did I not get a scorecard, cause I don't seem to have one) We'll do it because we don't understand or we just disagree and discussion is the only way to resolve either of those.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Then argue without me. I'm tired of this.
-Katarain
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Kat, I think you are right for voting for Bush just as someone is right for voting for Kerry. There is no right or wrong.
There is no spoon, for that matter. I don't see how either frontrunner can drastically change the way I live my life over the next 4 years. After all, I LOATHED Bill Clinton, and he didn't even make a dent in my lifestyle. He was too busy living his own.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not exactly.. It's just that I could be missing something... One never knows. Maybe I would have been more supportive of the Iraq war if the administration had been more upfront about their intentions. Or, perhaps the fact that I despise war under any circumstance blinds me... I simply cannot understand why being a liberal is such a bad thing... I can understand being against abortion, but I don't believe in banning int because it will still happen, only not under the most safest conditions. I don't really understand being against common sense simple gun control, not banning them outright, just keeping them out of the hands of criminals. I think family values are important, but I don't see how gay rights are a threat to family values... Really, what I want is middle ground. I don't hear it anywhere. This board is a lot more civil than another board I frequent, but I wonder, do a lot of conservatives see anything negative about Bush? Perhaps I am wrong for not seeing anything positive about him... *ponders*
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Right, Alucard. I expect my day to day life won't change much if Kerry wins, either.
quote:President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
I thought you were done?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: I can understand being against abortion, but I don't believe in banning int because it will still happen, only not under the most safest conditions. I don't really understand being against common sense simple gun control, not banning them outright, just keeping them out of the hands of criminals.
Syn, I think most conservatives turn your arguments around...they don't really understand not making laws against abortion, and they think that criminals will ignore laws against guns and get them on the black market. They will still be manufactured somewhere, after all.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hmm The problem is my life WOULD probably change under Bush... For the negative... Especially if a few things he is proposing come into effect. It will make things harder for me...
True. But... It's not unreasonable to do background checks on people before they get guns... *cannot think straight today*
[ October 09, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I HATE debate. I hate having my views attacked and some points are scored against me because the other person is a better debater. I think debates are useless for really proving anything, really.
Debates are not about points. A good debater brings all parties closer to the truth. A bad debator worries about points, or tries to obscure the truth to "win" some game he's playing. In the end he may get more points, but the debate is point-less because nobody is closer to understanding at the end and those points will unravel as soon as everyone realizes they were generated through tricks rather than truthful argument.
And without debate, I don't believe you can have an informed opinion because it is only through debate that you truly get to understand differing viewpoints. And I don't mean listening to debate - I mean engaging in it. Thus, hating debate endangers one's judgement.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Thanks, Tres. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
FactCheck is absurdly misleading in its own right. The major stock run-up on Halliburton after Cheney was selected as VicePresidential running mate was certainly reflected in the amount of money he received from sales of stocks and cashing in stock options. And he certainly received an incredibly large severence bonus after he became Dubya's choice for VicePresident that far far far exceeded any bonus earned via his contract.
More to the point, Halliburton's board of directors and stockholders were very unhappy with Cheney's performance...until Cheney became a close advisor to Dubya's 2000ElectionCampaign. So even keeping him on as CEO until he resigned could be seen as a gamble/investment in hoped-for political favors in the future. If one were cynical, one could say that between the time he became campaign advisor to the time he became the VicePresident-select, Halliburton was not paying Cheney for working as a CEO, but rather paying him for playing party politics.
What? You gonna say money influences people only if it is paid after a service is rendered? I suppose that's why you get to go into a concert, watch the show, then pay afterward depending on how much you liked it. Okay, I'll play. Going back further, DefenseSecretary Cheney hired Kellog, Brown, and Root to find military jobs that could be taken over by civilian contractors. Interestingly enough, they found some, and won ~90% of the contracts for the jobs that they found. And when Cheney resigned from the position of DefenseSecretary, he got hired as CEO by Haliburton, the owner of Kellog, Brown, and Root.
So FactCheck is just another spinmeister, and an extremely biased one at that. "I didn't actually tell a lie" don't cut it when relevent facts are deliberately withheld solely to mislead people into believing a lie.
[ October 09, 2004, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
aspectre, What the crap are you talking about?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Added a link up above to the specific which I used as an example.
In the general, I'm talking about using FactCheck as if it were a be all and end all to checking facts. In my opinion, FactCheck relies on people not paying attention to political news in much the same manner as JunkScience relies on people not reading science articles; and relies on a short memory span in those who do.
WalterAnnenberg had a long record of supporting Republicans and, more relevent to this discussion, funding neo"conservative" organizations and publications; often being amongst the first to write a check for their creation. So it's unsurprising that the trustees -- whom he selected to run the foundations he set up, before&after selling his media empire to fellow rightwinger RupertMurdock -- would have similar political views, would fund similar ventures.
Yes, I do know of his gift to public broadcasting; as well as of his establishment of two Annenberg Centers for Communications, PublicPolicyInstitutes, etc at various colleges and universities. I also know about the origin of practical colleges in England, and of the connection to the beheading of Charles the First.
[ October 12, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: If he committed crimes, he needs to pay for them.
Do some research...he said that every command over there was in violation of treaties, because of the administrations policies....
And then, unlike most vets, he came home and helped put a stop to those very actions.
Unlike Bush, who couldn't stay sober long enough to report for his stateside obligations....which involved no risk.
If Kerry is guilty, so is every person who served over there...which is his point.
Have you bothered to read ANYTHING about that, other than the statements made by the Bush campaign? Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I think it's cute that they still pretend to ask questions and call it something other than a joint press conference.
I gave a slight edge to Kerry as well, although I realize that that's tempered by the fact that I am a) not American and b) So for to the left in an American climate that I'd be locked away for loonyism if I lived there. Bush seemed to get more flustered than Kerry and he seemed to be caught flat-footed on a number of occasions. I actually liked the words that came out of Kerry's mouth about the judge thing which is a fairly rare event for me as well.
But at the end of the day the best thing about this debate is how much it made me appreciate living in Canada Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Squicky:
quote:None of my friends are calling this for President Bush, even the pro-Bush people, some of whom called the last one a weak win for GW. Is this people's consensus or just a consequence of my limited sample size?
That's the same feeling I'm getting from the people around me, too. It's rather interesting, since I personally thought that GW did a lot better this time, and this might have been a small win in his favor, or at least a draw.
--j_k
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
i'm amazed that there is even debate about who came out on top in this debate: as far as i can tell bush had his ass handed to him in a bag, at least for the first half of the debate.
i'm fairly liberal, so obviously i was more receptive to kerry's arguments than bush's, and i realize that bush's positions on many issues are based more on beliefs and feelings about what is the "right thing to do" than on reasoned debate (and thus are less vulnerable to being disproved through a debate), but for the first half of the debate this is what i saw: kerry ripping into bush's positions and actions on iraq, and bush getting very defensive, a pretty angry, and responding by restating what he's been saying all along, only louder and with more force. i also think that for the first time in this election (to my knowledge), kerry did a decent job of defending his "flip-flops" by elaborating on the "nuances" of his decisions. a quick quote from the beginning:
quote:Now, the president wishes that I had changed my mind. He wants you to believe that because he can't come here and tell you that he's created new jobs for America. He's lost jobs.
He can't come here and tell you that he's created health care for Americans because, what, we've got 5 million Americans who have lost their health care, 96,000 of them right here in Missouri.
He can't come here and tell you that he's left no child behind because he didn't fund no child left behind.
So what does he do? He's trying to attack me. He wants you to believe that I can't be president. And he's trying to make you believe it because he wants you to think I change my mind.
i found his explanation of his iraq position fairly persuasive, though i don't believe it, i found his explanation of his no child left behind votes entirely persuasive, i found his explanation of his criticism of the iraq was logical, his explanation of his stance on abortion persuasive (although the comment about denying people in poverty what they're allowed under the constitution really bothers me). i have no idea what he's trying to say about he made an error in how he talks about his vote while the president made an error in the war. he said something about voting for it so he could blame the president for it.
i think his justifications for his change of opinion are critical to his campaign because they accomplish two things: first, they cast doubt on the main focus of bush's attacks on kerry; that he lacks conviction and will not be able to lead because he doesn't have a clear vision of what to do, and secondly:, they begin to suggest that kerry has a better handle on reality than bush and is capable of understanding complex situations. i think bush's response to kerry's reasons for not supporting the partial birth abortion ban demonstrate this clearly: kerry says he voted against it because i did not include a provision for the procedure when it was medically necessary. now we can argue about if this is ever the case, but the bottom line is that this is a decision to be made by doctors, not politicians, and there is a good deal of evidence that there are such instances. bush refused to acknowledge that the issues involves anything more than killing babies when it clearly does, and his response "yes or no", seems indicative of his entire governing philosophy. "with us or against us", "evildoers", "axis of evil", etc etc etc.
another point: if i had never seen either of them and was watching the debate with the sound turned off and someone asked me "which of these men do you think is the president of the united states" i would have pointed to Kerry with no hesitation. throughout the debate he looked more presidential, more in control, more intelligent, more capable, and more trustworthy that bush. bush spent the first half of the debate looking childish, angry, and flustered. i remember seeing the expression he had on his face while kerry was talking a few times from the scene in f9/11 where he is told the twin towers have been attacked and he sits there for 10 minutes looking bewildered and confused.
i've never liked Kerry, i've been planning on voting for him because i'd vote for a purple monkey if he were the other option, but last night makes me feel a little better about what i plan to do.
a quick point not directly related to the debate: people have talked about how they dislike that kerry is going to turn our security over to the UN, or how he won't protect us if the decision is unpopular. i think that it should be crystal clear by now that involving the UN in whatever we do in the rest of the world is a VERY good idea. we now know that sanctions DID contain Hussein, and that we probably SHOULD have paid more attention to the hesitations of the majority of the rest of the world in invading iraq. the justifications for this invasion have been changing on a monthly basis, and the most recent of these justifications has now been debunked. first it iraq was an immanent threat to the US (nuclear missiles capable to be launched in 45 minutes), then it was WMD's, then it was the ability to produce WMD's, then it was the liberation of the iraqi people. now it's turned into the desire by Hussein to have WMD's.
Bush keeps telling us that iraq was a unique threat, because it was a "nexus" in which terrorists could have acquired WMD's. unfortunately this isn't a very unique situation, in fact the only thing unique about it is the fact that iraq had virtually no military capability and so was an easy target.
obviously the argument that freeing the iraqi people was justification enough for the war is pretty airtight in itself, but again it applies to many different countries, several of which also fit the "nexus" criteria.
add to this mix that iraq is currently a total mess, and has become the #1 location a terrorist wanting to take out his anger on the US would go to kill some american soldiers and i ask you: how in god's name can we look at bush and believe he's done a good job of defending america from terrorism? true, he didn't know going in that there were no WMD's, but isn't that why we don't invade a country without verifiable proof that they do, in fact, pose an immanent threat to our security? true, we have to be pro-active in prosecuting the "war on terror", but when our actions increase our exposure to terrorists while concurrently making them angrier (and arguably increasing their numbers), is such an action really in our best interest? true, some decisions, though unpopular, must be made, but when making such decisions doesn't it behoove one to consider the reasons for their unpopularity? one consistent theme which i suspect both sides can agree to in the bush administration is that bush does what he thinks is right, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks about it. that's all fine and dandy unless you're unwilling to critically examine the position and the reasons others do not hold it, and i have not seen anything to make me think bush is capable of doing this. if still believe his decisions have been the right one this argument will make little difference to you, but if not: doesn't it bother you that even when there is overwhelming evidence that the administration's decisions were premature, i not flat out wrong, that they refuse to examine them?
ok, enough ranting. sorry about that, i didn't mean to get so preachy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, its important to keep saying that, despite what the Bush campaign lies on TV, Kerry does not advocate allowing the UN to veto or control our armed forces. He does want us to use our armed forces as responsible world citizens, conscious of others' positions.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
He he he. The sound bite I keep hearing on Canadian news stations is Bush's "We want to make sure that perscription drugs coming in from Canada cure you and don't kill you." (paraphrased)
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
exactly: the UN is a tool, and like any tool its effectiveness depends in no small part on the skill of the person using it.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Bob, I wish Bush could coherently explain what is happening with counterfeit drugs WITHOUT any imports being mainstream at this point.
In the pharmaceutical industry, we are seeing drug manufacturers using clever but seemingly inadequate attempts to prevent the counterfeiting of very expensive drugs, especially biotech drugs. Drugs like Procrit and Zyprexa are now sealed with a holographic sticker placed over the bottle cap, in a similar way stickers are placed over liquor bottles. These holographic stickers are supposed to prevent placebo drugs from being sold through obscure wholesalers, who then sit back and wait to sell to mainstream wholesalers who run into an emergency or short-term shortage.
Some of these counterfeit drugs are popping up in the US and other countries. I believe that the importation of drugs will only worsen this problem. The best way to ensure that there is an unadulterated drug in your prescription bottle is to go to a pharmacy that only buys its drugs directly from the manufacturer or a major wholesaler like McKesson or Cardinal.
I wish Bush could have articulated the warning that importation may be unsafe for the reasons above, not because Canadians want to poison us. Geez.
I believe that Bush might just talk his way out of being re-elected.
[ October 09, 2004, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Alucard, his point was not that drugs made in Canada would be bad...it was if they are comming out of Canada we can't be sure they started there, or if they were imported into Canada from some other country that would make unsafe drugs.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, that was what he wanted his point to be, which Alucard understands. What his actual point was is more than a bit unclear, as Alucard also noted .
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
ah, I guess I just thought he was more clear...he did not go into the level of detail that Alucard went into (he is Bush after all) but I did not get the impression that he thought it was an issue with Canada being bad.
Though of course I am biased. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Actually, my amusement stems for the fact that, much as many cry for increased distance between Canada and the US, we just can't help our morbid facination with your country So it amused me that they singled out the one quote where Canada was mentioned. Especially considering that this issue is by no means the one that will have the greatest impact on Canadians.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I missed the first half hour, but listened to the rest on the radio. I thought Bush was somewhat better than last time, but that Kerry did pretty well, and that Kerry did even better on the offensive this time.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Lupus,
What fugu said. Thanks bud. The point I was trying to make was that for the initiated into counterfeit drugs and importation, this was an opportunity for Bush to make a real impact. I believe that he jumbled his words a bit on the issue, possibly offending Canadians and making his point a bit more opaque.
Like we agree on, we KNOW what his point was, but I think he could have been a little clearer, time permitting of course.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hmm...
What if we found a drug import/export firm in Canada that buys directly from the manufacturer (or McKesson) and then sends the drugs to the US?
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Bob, you just described 95% of the drugs on the market today.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I missed this debate. More important matters (football).
But did I actually see someone dismiss Factcheck.org as a spin site?
Now "that's" funny.
[ October 09, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: If Kerry is guilty, so is every person who served over there...which is his point.
That is the most absurd claim about the Vietnam war I have ever heard.
If what you say is true, then Kerry did just slander every vet of the war. Your statements just backed that up.
If every person is guilty who served in Vietnam, then every person who is serving in Iraq right now because of Abu Ghraib, is guilty.
Such a claim then and now is to me absurd.
I have a cousin serving outside of Ramadi and I know he is guilty of nothing but serving his country.
And I pray to God his life never falls into the hands or decision making of John Kerry.
God help us all and the Iraqis if it does.
[ October 09, 2004, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Bob, there are two other points I should follow up on, instead of a one-line response.
1. The pharmacy chain I am employed by was just sold and purchased by the Jean Coutu Group. Our immediate owners handle the Brooks pharmacy chain in New England, but the Brooks and Coutu family are intertwined through some very prominent members of each family being wed, or so the story goes. But basically, the 4th largest pharmacy chain in the world is a subsidiary of a Canadian company. If drug importation becomes a reality, I do not forsee a very big logistical problem for our company to sell imported drugs. Which brings us to the second part of my dilemma.
2. I worked with Pfizer in one of my rotations during pharmacy school. They gave me an office, a laptop, meals, mileage, and a secretary. Everything basically, but the company car. The pharmaceutical industry views itself as the last great bastion of American Inginuity. They are the last great monopoly and economic force that has not been eroded by global markets, or so they will tell you. Of course, this statement is hardly fact, but this is what corporate entities will tell you. I spoke with Eli Lilly employees that were fearful of their employment, and stated that "You never leave Eli Lilly" like they are the CIA or something. Evidently, once you see behind the red curtain and realize Oz for what it is, you cannot ever leave.
So the point to be made is, will importation of drugs finally force the pharmaceutical industry into a global marketplace with a level playing field? I doubt it. These corporate supremacists will fight it every step of the way to finality in any direction. If anything, global prices will rise.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Can someone answer if Bush caught Kerry in a double standard?
Kerry wants to close a "Loophole" that "encourages" companies to send their workforces overseas...
But wants to make it so we can send our money DIRECTLY overseas or out of country to buy prescription drugs. EDIT: UNTAXED no less.
Mr. Kerry, is it true that the only thing "clear" about your "clear plans" is that it's "clear" you don't know what the hell you are going to do and are making it up as you go along?
Did Bush call him on that or am I the only one?
[ October 09, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
This is Tom.
Chad, I think you're overestimating the number of people employed by the pharmaceutical industry.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Hi Tom!
Read the post right above mine first.
The one with "global" and "monopoly", etc.
Also, you want an easy way for terrorists to kill Americans?
Vote for Kerry, open the floodgates of unregulated foreign drug importation, and then get a bunch of Terrorist sending American Seniors "dirty" poisoined medications.
After all, according to Clinton, Al Qaida has ties to Drug Manufacturing, or did he send dozens of Tomahawk missles into Sudan to blow up an "innocent" pill factory?
Sorry, Kerry is giving the enemy a new doorway which they can use to attack us through.
He is WEAK on defense. He's what our enemies want, therefore he is NOT what I want.
[ October 09, 2004, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Mr. Kerry, is it true that the only thing "clear" about your "clear plans" is that it's "clear" you don't know what the hell you are going to do and are making it up as you go along?
He's suggesting two different solutions to two different problems that you want to tie together so arguments against one can be used against the other. That seems a lot more convoluted than anything Kerry has proposed.
Many of the largest companies in the U.S. -- including many that the government has contracts with -- have offshore corporations that exist for no other reason than to evade U.S. taxation. This, to me, is more dangerous to our economy than outsourcing. Efforts to reduce or eliminate this, or at least to cut govt. contracts to companies that do it, have been strongly resisted every time by oddly well-funded lobbysists and politicians. I see no problem with efforts to curtail this unAmerican bit of chicanery.
Many drug companies charge whatever they want for their products in that span of time before the drug can be produced generically. While "charge what the traffic will bear" is a fundamental law of commerce, there are signs that some drug companies are pocketing insane profits while sick and elderly people suffer because they can't afford the inflated prices. One answer would be for the govt. to force those prices down, but this would be extremely heavy-handed of the govt and neither candidate has suggested it. Instead, by opening up the possibility for people to buy their medicines from other countries, the playing field has been opened up. Should this come into effect I'll bet you that the drug companies miraculously find ways to lower their prices.
I should also point out that Bush says he intends to do the same thing that Kerry proposes, he simply wants to take longer to do it so safety can be assured. I don't believe him, but essentially he's saying he'll do the same thing that you accuse Kerry of supporting.
I am, however, impressed that you possess knowledge of the terrorists' plans that no one else does. I've heard it suggested that the terrorists were using the pill factory to create chemical weapons, I've heard it said that Clinton bombed it because it was the morning that DNA evidence was due. I've never heard that the terrorists were there to manufacture tainted bottles of Viagra and insinuate them into the U.S. How diabolical! I wonder how they got the labels to look right?
Posted by HonoreDB (Member # 1214) on :
I really want Chad not to be posting about Kerry any more.
I doubt I have the moral or temporal authority to stop him, as I doubt he's being at all inane or offensive enough to do more than annoy, at most, other posters. And since I have my partisan Democrat hat on until the election results are certified, there is a certain implied compliment in my sentiment.
But still, come on. CStroman is blindly repeating the nonsensical Republican talking points about Kerry, and he's not going to stop, and it's clogging the discussion. Nobody here is going to not vote for Kerry on the basis of what he said about, or did in, the Vietnam war. Nobody here is going to not vote for Kerry because they think that his vote against one spending bill constituted voting against funding the war. If Chad names himself as a counterexample, he's lying.
This post, of course, is probably equally pointless. I'm just venting, I guess.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Oh my God! Terrorists might poison our drugs! But, look at all the other things we import! They could taint our oil! Sneak things into our food! Put itching powder in our underpants!
*ahem*
(sorry Chad, I'm finidng it hard to take you seriously on this issue)
Anyway, about this whole perscription drug thing. The biggest problem with the importation of drugs into the States is, as Alucard alluded to, that it does nothing to fix the problem. American drug prices aren't really going to drop. I don't think that you'll see a global rise in costs, rather the few other developed countries that don't have price controls will implement them.
Keep in mind, though, that the Canadian system is already starting to buckle under the load of supplying the bus loads of people who are currently crossing the border to buy drugs. If we jump into it wholesale we are going to have problems taking care of our own ("Take care of us first" is a not uncommon rallying cry when this gets raised in Ottawa). So even if the American government decides to go through with it the day after the election there's no saying the Canadian government won't try to delay it while we set up some sort of infrastructure to support it.
Nevermind the question of would drug companies continue selling to price controlled Canada? We're a small market of 30 million people and we'd have to drastically increase the amount of drugs we import from the States in order to sell them back to Americans for lower prices. If enough Americans go for it American companies may cut out the middle man and just stop selling their drugs to Canada completely. Something Canadians would be a little upset about, to say the least. Something that's actually already happening to a degree.
Posted by HonoreDB (Member # 1214) on :
I do think importing Canadian drugs is a temporary and minor solution. Canadian drugs are priced lower for market reasons that will eventually go away if Americans are allowed to buy them.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I do love poking fun at people. But to expand on what Alucard was saying about drug counterfeiting and what Chad was getting at (I think):
I back you guys 100% on banning importation of drugs from Canada until Canada gets its act together. While there has never been a reported case of drug counterfiting in Canada (to my knowledge), I'm sure we're largely responsible for the ones that have occurred in America. You can only sell drugs in Canada that have been approved by Health Canada and if there's an MRA in place with the country in question. Article 37 of the Canadian Food and Drug Act specifically states that drugs intended for sale to Canadian citizens must be inspected. But hey, if you're not selling to Canadians, you can go to town. No inspections are required.
How much of a problem is this? Canada imports drugs from more than 100 countries. We have MRAs with 18. Imports from places like, oh, Iran have gone up 2753% between September 2002 and September 2003 according to industry Canada. Imports from South Africa and Thailand have both risen by over 50% and the percentage of counterfeited drugs in those countries is reported to be around 30%. None of these have been sold to Canadian citizens. They have, however, been sold by mail order to anyone else. With the explosion of demand for drug imports from Canada Canadian companies have started buying from anyone who'll sell them. Because they aren't being sold to Canadians they don't have to be inspected. Because they're from Canada claiming to be a drug approved by the FDA they may not be inspected on entry to the US. Therein lies the problem.
Edit: Posted without looking it over because my dinner was burning. My dinner was unedible and the post had some glaring grammatical errors, thus proving once again that I should never try and multitask anything other than failure.
[ October 09, 2004, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Some things are more important than the fate of the free world ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)