posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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 Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
