9:37 Home from bowling. Heard some of the debate on the radio. Nothing was being said that was substantially different from what I've heard before.
9:39 Kerry is looking right into camera. Is it that someone told him to do so, is the moderator just sitting in front of the camera?
9:40 My God, I've never seen Bush's smirk more pronounced.
9:42 Any Canadians out there with opinions on whether government controlled health care results in poor quality?
9:46 Wait...is that what Bush said? The way that Kerry put it? Did Bush actually say that young people should be able to take money out of SS and put it into accounts? I thought he was just talking about putting money into savings.
9:48 I find that a bit hard to believe, that that tax cut alone would have kept SS going until 2075.
9:52 Okay, seriously. Did Bush have, y'know, a minor stroke on the left hand side of his face? I mean, the sneer is starting to distract me.
9:53 This is the first question to Bush that he hasn't used to attack Kerry.
9:53: Whoops. Spoke too soon. Got in a shot under the wire.
9:57 That's an interesting promise, that Kerry will bring the minimum wage up to over $7 an hour. Kerry's also using the opportunity to target women.
9:58 AW, COME ON. Bush veered jobs over into education, and now he's veering minimum wage into education? Jesus.
10:00 Holy crap. Two boldly dodged questions by Bush.
10:02 I mean, I hope American women were paying attention to that. Bush's out and out dodging of the question was not only pathetic, but it really made clear that, hell yeah, he would want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
10:04 What the hell is Bush blinking so much for?
10:07 No, Kerry did NOT talk about a global test in respect to getting permission from other countries to defend himself. Does Bush NEVEr get tired of exaggerating it? Thank God Kerry is meeting that one head on.
10:09 Oh, come on. Bush heard that there wasn't support for the Assault weapons ban (which I doubt) and therefore decided not to bother to push for it? As if he hasn't failed to put the full court press to those things that he really DOES believe in.
10:14 I'm not sure if Bush met with the Black Congressional Caucus or not, but he sure as heck didn't meet with the other organizations Kerry mentioned.
10:17 Jeez, I wish Kerry would find another word to use other than "respect" when it comes to matters of religion.
10:18 Now KERRY swings a question over to education? Oooookay.
10:22 The point isn't that the country was divided in 2000. The point is that the country was united in 2001 and now is split once again, even worse than before.
10:24 what a powder puff question for the last question in the debate.
10:26 Idear? IDEAR? Kerry can say "nuclear," but he can't say "idea?"
10:29 I like the notion that Bush is optimistic. Unfortunately, it doesn't jibe with many of his speeches that hit again and again sentiments of fear and terror.
I thought Bush's closing speech was better, but overall Kerry just flat out performed better. I think Bush really hurt himself when he dodged several questions in a row. And I'll tell you, I was dubious about the whole Bush-listening device thing, but there were moments when it really did look like Bush was listening to someone else talking...Ah well. I dunno.
Posted by Peter David at October 13, 2004 09:04 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingof note: bush said he does not recall his statement that he was not concerned about osama bin laden, and claimed it was one of those "exagerrations."
also of note:
Bush, on CNN from 2002:
"I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban."
Oh my stars, will Bush please stop with the smile? The boy just looks like a petulant child.... some president...
Ra!
Bush's campaign jokes are continuing to fall flat in the debate forum. I'm surprised that he hasn't realized that after 2 previous debates.
"Let me explain this to the elderly..." and "youngsters". I may simply be overanalyzing as it is a job requirement, but does this seem patronizing to anyone else?
Re 9:42: I was awfully curious about that, too. And whether or not America has a health care system envied across the world, too.
My impression of Bush's retirment proposal is that it focuses on individual responsibility. People budget for their own retirement. Works fine if you have a high-paying job and a working knowledge of both budgeting and options. Kind of out of touch, unrealistic and elitist in my mind.
Yep, the smirk comes across as arrogant, whether he intends to be or not.
I know a family that live in Italy, which has a government controlled health care system. They had their first child there and they hated it so much that they came to the States for the birth of their second child. They also come here if they need serious medical attention.
Willing worker card?!?! That just screams abuse, how are we going to prove whether or not people are willing to work when you can get an migrant to work for half the price? That's a joke... grr..
(hmm... which of these guys people let them wear similar ties?)
Ra!
By far the dullest of the debates so far.
If you don't like Bush you will hate his smile. If you like Bush you will like his smile. By now this should be obvious--what is pleasing to the eye of one is anathema to another. Some look at Ted Kennedy and see a man of towering conviction, while I see someone who should be in the final panel of an EC comic, going "Aieeeee!" as the waterlogged corpse of Mary Jo Kopechne drags him into a pool of quicksand.
Hey Bill, got a drink of choice tonight or did Friday night have you changing your ways?
Kerry says he can up the minimum wage to $7? Is he insane?
Min. wage up to seven bucks? That's, um, quite interesting. I'd love to see how he'd plan to do that.
*grumble grumble No Child Left Behind grumble grumble*
Ok, well, actually, I just got so nored I just started rewatching the episode of LOST I'd taped. Holy shnizolla! Nobody saw that one coming! Episode goes right onto the top 20 of all time list. Abrams is a genius.
I love the fact that Bush continues to use the rhetoric and twisted versions of Kerry's previous statements. I love this simply because the one-trick pony allows Kerry to counter by very publicly dismissing and correcting him. :)
hmm... did Bush just say that Reservists are happy to have their terms extended? All the reservists i know feel their doing their duty, but they aren't exactly happy about it... I guess I must hang out with the wierd Reservists...
Woohoo!!! I can have an AK-47!!! (Who's goin to the gunshow with me?!?)
Ra!
10:02 I mean, I hope American women were paying attention to that. Bush's out and out dodging of the question was not only pathetic, but it really made clear that, hell yeah, he would want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
Yeah, but who didn't already know that? He just disavowed any organized attempt to get it repealed.
Kerry says he can up the minimum wage to $7? Is he insane?
No, just blinded by his beliefs.
I missed the first half of LOST. What did I miss, Bill?
On second thought that's a massive invitation for spoilers in an open thread. Forget I asked.
David, this episode of LOST focused on the back story of bizarre, creepy bald guy. Let's just say that we are given a very powerful lesson on the dangers of judging on first impressions.
Bush "feels" people praying for him? I need to take another look at the DSM-IV and other criteria for schizophrenia.
you're an american whether or not you are christian, islam, etc... yea, but we'll still shove the Ten Commandments down your throat, oh yea... and you better believe in God...
well, aleast Bush didn't say he was on a crusade again...
Ra
(hmm... Bush's smirk is really irking me...)
Ye Gods (of your choice)...
Did Bush actually just confirm, in as many words, that this war footing is a *crusade*?????
John M
For once, I'd love for Kerry to say what is one his mind instead of following up with "I respect...". Wouldn't it be awesome, if just once, he turned to Bush with his jaw dropped, and utter, "Are you wacky?!?!?"
John,
yea he did, but thank the gods he didn't actually say Crusade... man...
Ra!
Ya know, as far as the frivalous lawsuits, why on Earth hasn't Kerry specifically brought up his plan to hold lawyers accountable on a "3 strikes and your out" policy? It is easy to understand and Edwards brought it up. Makes sense and is a no-brainer score for their side.
10:24 what a powder puff question for the last question in the debate.
Well, we do have to leave everyone feeling all happy and squishy.
Oops, not sure about rules of the cameras, but Kerry must have won points with that very timely camera shot of his wife that popped up and humanized him during his response about her and his mom.
As they shook hands and exchanged words, I imagined Kerry telling Bush, "I'm going to kick your butt," to which Bush replied, "Bring it on, Munster boy." Kerry does the unthinkable and wins three for three in my view.
And now it's up to time and the voters. Kerry has made a remarkable come back. He must continue to keep bush on the defensive and expose the straw man.
The president's closing speech was a home run. He finally got it right. Bush is much more likeable than Kerry, who really couldn't seal the deal with the question about the women in his life. Bush liked to have welled up while recollecting the day he met Laura, and his self-deprecating humor glossed over the president's homey clumsiness as a debater. Another fine job by Senator Kerry, but that's the problem. It was like watching a Meryl Streep film. She's a fabulous, Oscar-winning actress. You get used to it, used to the skill and ease she has in employing it. I was looking for an electric moment from Kerry that never came. You expect Bush to be a weasel, and al of his weaseling in this debate, I guarantee you, got glossed over by his teary-eyed adoration for his family and his confessions of faith. In fact, the president seemed to have learned from Kerry and went after Kerry aggressively and in a focused, linear way. I think I have to score this a draw, but I'm tempted to tip it to Bush, if not on substance on style. He pasted Kerry in the arena of likeability and he slipped one past Kerry on Kerry's "retreat and defeat" Iraq policy.
Kerry, I like you a lot more than Bush, but your Min-Wage comment made me cry and throw things. I'm just the DAUGHTER of an Economist and I know how STUPID that plan is.
It's pretty well known that a high rate of blinking correlates strongly to lying
Peter you missed the start of the debate where Schieffer asked about gay marriage and if the candidates think if homosexuality is choice:
Totally out of the blue Kerry brings up Cheney's daughter "a lesbian". I couldn't help but think of THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART summarizing Edwards' response to a similar question in the VP debate, that people admire Vice President Cheney's love for his *** GAY DAUGHTER ***.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Peter, Bush's smile looks like a smirk--and his wife, Laura, told him to stop scowling. What's a president gonna do, tick off his opponents or tick off his wife? >=^>
Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Elijah Cummings, 7/16/03: “Mr. President, I need not remind you that the CBC's requests for meetings with you have gone unanswered for more than two-and-one-half years.” http://www.cbcpac.com/news/press4.php
Hey Ken
They need to keep reminding people about Cheney's gay daughter. It's one of the few redeeming qualities I can find in Cheney.
Well in ontario the minimum wage is $7.15 and it will be up to $8.00 in a couple of years, so I don't know how impossible it is.
As for Health care I'm fairly satisfied with it. Although the Tories (re Conservaties) cur the hell out of it when they were in power and it's slowly being repaired unfortunately at a slightly greater cost.
9:42 LOTS of Canadians have opinions on our health care system. Overall it works, but it needs some streamlining and better cost controls. Only a tiny minority of people want to see Canada go over to the US system of private care, perhaps one-thirtieth of the population, and these are the same republican hardliners who wanted to join the US in 1867.
A couple of provinces have minimum wages of $7.50 or higher, and the lowest is $5.50, and economic disaster has not befallen the land. Spyderqueen needs a chill-pill.
I don't know what's more entertaining, the commentary on the debate, or skipping it to watch "Hellboy".
It's depressing that this year, I only care about who loses.
BRING BACK THE CORPSE OF EISENHOWER!
9:42 Any Canadians out there with opinions on whether government controlled health care results in poor quality?
Jeez, talk about a loaded question. I suppose the short answer would be "sort of." We have problems with long wait lists for surgery, as well as difficulties in keeping skilled doctors in the country when you folks down south offer much, much more money.
It's always a huge issue up here, and there are always groups looking to move parts of health care into the private sector. Despite the undeniable problems, I wouldn't trade our system of universal health care for anything, and can only hope that the U.S. starts to move in that direction as well.
As to whether we Canadians find that a state-run medical system results in lower quality:
Currently there is no national consensus on whether the funds we give to our Provincial and Federal govts are being spent wisely in that area- there is tremendous concern about waits for treatment or procedures. Our PM and the Premiers of the provinces and territories just had a big summit meeting to discuss the allocation of funds to health care, specifically how the feds will distribute the monies they collect to the provincial health ministries.
But- and this is a mighty big but- no politician in the entire country would ever get elected running on a platform of repealing state-funded medicine. Even the advocates of a two-tiered system (99.999% of the time rich folks who want to be able to jump the queue without flying down to the states) do not want to repeal basic coverage for all citizens.
What consensus on health care exists up here is on the point that we absolutely, positively do *not* want a US-style system, where treatment for a life-threatening illness or accident can potentially bankrupt you, your family, and your heirs and assigns. Ask any Canadian you want, they'll give you the same answer: our system is far from perfect, there is much room for improvement, but it's a damn sight better than the American one.
My 0.02$, for what it's worth...
"Only a tiny minority of people want to see Canada go over to the US system of private care, perhaps one-thirtieth of the population, and these are the same republican hardliners who wanted to join the US in 1867."
Wow, those must be some pretty old Canadians. If those creaky old bastards are still alive and kicking then I guess your health care system is pretty damn good after all.
Only a tiny minority of people want to see Canada go over to the US system of private care, perhaps one-thirtieth of the population, and these are the same republican hardliners who wanted to join the US in 1867.
And we worry about OUR aging population.
I have to say right up front, I despise Bush and wish somebody would hit him with one of those giant Soupy Sales powder puffs every time he smirked, but as with the second debate, I'd call this one a draw. I think Kerry could have knocked it out of the park, but he lets too many opportunities go. Instead of turning Bush's words back on him, which is a very basic debate trick, he seemed intent on sticking to the game, if you'll excuse the word, plan. And secondly, he lets Bush get away with murder. He let the global test misquote go unanswered for far too long, and now he let Bush float the 'nuisance' misquote yet again. And there were at least three opportunities where Kerry gave a nuanced answer where I can see the Republicans put the scissors in, cutting off the caveat and leaving the useful out of context quote. Regarding the previous posters who said Bush did better in talking about his wife, I think Kerry outflanked him beautifully. He knew that his wife wasn't all warm and fuzzy like Laura Bush, so he played the dying mom card instead. Brilliant.
My predictions for tomorrow? Kerry gets caught out for talking about Bush not meeting with the congressional black caucus (he did). Bush gets caught out for denying the bin Laden quote (MSNBC has already disproved it by showing the original quote tonight). After the spin dies down, they're going to call this one a draw too. And even one win and two draws for Kerry is bad news indeed for Bush.
Is anybody else getting, like, really tired of Rudy Guliani? I think I've counted him spinning on four different networks in the past half hour, two of them at the same time I think. Did you know he was mayor of New York City during 9/11? I think he might have mentioned it in passing at some point. Sorry, my sarcasm chip is overheating.
And did anybody notice for the second debate in a row, it was Bush who broke the rules they'd both signed, by addressing Kerry directly? Having said that, if I was Kerry, I'd be thinking, 'Third debate, I've got nothing to lose!' and break every damn rule there is. What's Bush going to do, refuse do debate him again?
I didn't read the above posts, 'cuz I taped LOST and do *not* want to see any surprises revealed here. I also taped the debate, though I don't expect any surprises from either one. ("I support making prostitution not only legal, but also mandatory.")
However, does anyone see a contradiction between Bush's "culture of life" (opposing abortion) and supporting capital punishment?
Karen: Bush met with the Congressional Black Caucus twice (1/31/01 and 2/25/04). That's twice more than Kerry claimed he did (although admittedly once fewer than the times Cheney met but didn't remember meeting Blinky... I mean Edwards).
" your Min-Wage comment made me cry and throw things. I'm just the DAUGHTER of an Economist and I know how STUPID that plan is"
Absolutely, Spyderqueen. Let's go with the tried and true of paying people as little as we can get away with. That's always done wonders for the economy, hasn't it? Well, OK, maybe not the PERSONAL economies of those involved, but, hey, since when did they count?
PAD,
Interesting commentary, but I think you dodged a couple of key moments. Kerry completely evaded the issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants, spending most of his time talking about the previous topic and then weaseling. Of course Kerry and Bush are not really in disagreement on this issue. They both want to grant amnesty which I think is insane. The other key moment is when Bush unequivocally said that he is against a litmust test on abortion for Supreme Court justices and Kerry said he has a litmus test on that and on other issues.
I suspect that all of the endless numbers that both guys were tossing around will be contradicted by fact checkers tomorrow. The question is who made the better impression on undecided voters and I sure don't know.
Regards,
Dennis
A month or so ago, I was complaining because Kerry had yet to explain specifically what he was going to do, if elected, regarding various key campaign issues. I believe I said "He has no plans."
Well, he must have heard that from other folks as well, because now Kerry claims to have plans for EVERTHING. Unfortunately, one things the plans generally are not are specific. And in addition to developing this army of plans in a month or so, one thing Kerry did not (or could not) do was explain very well how he was going to PAY for them.
As a matter of fact, whoever is advising Kerry about things financial should be probably find a new profession, because many of the financial numbers Kerry was throwing around during this debate were just plain wrong. His biggest gaffe was that the money lost because of Bush's tax cut could have funded Social Security until 2076 -- another 72 years! I just reviewed the budget numbers based on reports by the CBO and other independent organizations, and if Kerry's assertion wasn't so laughably wrong, I would almost be mad.
...and these are the same republican hardliners who wanted to join the US in 1867...
Okay, poorly phrased. Mea culpa.
I just wanted to add that my roommate thinks that bulge on Bush's back is an armoured vest. He has military experience, so I trust his judgement on this. An armoured vest with an ordinary microphone hook-up worn over it - The same kind Kerry would have been wearing - would be pretty bulky, and tend to pull on Bush's jacket when he moved. Someone in his team should have checked out how it would look before he went on camera, but either didn't think about it or didn't spot the problem. So that left Bush having to deal with a wardrobe malfunction. Maybe he should have worn pasties.
Bush "feels" people praying for him? I need to take another look at the DSM-IV and other criteria for schizophrenia.
I will take that question as meant to be somewhat in jest since it is highly bigoted towards us who are Christians. Go talk to people in high pressure situations (such as suffering from a disease, going through a great tragedy, or having to make difficult decisions), and there are people from many faiths who will tell you that prayer makes a difference and that they knew when others were praying for them. You don't have to believe it is true, you may say you have never experienced it, but it is absurd to say I am crazy because I know I have experienced it for myself.
Jim in Iowa
The one thing I wanted Kerry to talk about whenever Bush said "How is he going to pay for that?" is that Bush has no call to talk about fiscal responsibility. Bush keeps saying Kerry will be tax and spend, but Bush is just spending like there's no tomorrow without worrying about paying the tab. At least Kerry talks about being responsible with the deficit. And exactly what plan does Bush have to reduce the deficit he created? Where does he think he'll get the money? More tax cuts? He's promising the same stuff he promised 4 years ago, with the addition of promises to fix the things he's broken. Many of the things he talked about in his campaign against Gore he is recycling for this campaign, but he hasn't lifted a finger to enact most of these promises. Why does anyone believe that this time is any different?
This was by far Bush's best performance, but neither man scored a knockout. As for the diminishing undecideds, who knows? The key is, not who won this debate, but what voters will think is more important, issues like Social Security or Iraq/War On Terror. If it's the former, Kerry wins, unless this debate and the following helps close the gap enough on domestic issues for Bush. If it's the latter, Bush will win, unless some huge event causes people to change their view on Bush's Iraq/War On Terror decisions.
It's really that simple.
Posted by JamesLynch at October 13, 2004 11:35 PM
However, does anyone see a contradiction between Bush's "culture of life" (opposing abortion) and supporting capital punishment?
No. A baby, and innocent of the utmost degree, has no choice or freewill in the matter. Someone that committed a crime that warranted the death penalty, and was assigned such penalty by jury, made a choice and has to live (or die) with the consequences.
I don't support abortion, I think that it is wrong as a course of action, but think that it can be used in matters of mother's health and the very, very low occurance of rape/incest type pregnancies.
This is all, of course, just my opinion on the subject. You are free to have your own, encouraged even, but it doesn't mean I expect you to agree with me, or I with you.
"Absolutely, Spyderqueen. Let's go with the tried and true of paying people as little as we can get away with. That's always done wonders for the economy, hasn't it? Well, OK, maybe not the PERSONAL economies of those involved, but, hey, since when did they count?"
Okay, I work at Wal-Mart, so believe me, I know what its like to deal with low wages. That being said, I DO NOT want the minimum wage raised. Why? Where do you think companies are going to get the extra revenue to pay for it? Are they just going to pay the extra money and not worry about it? No, they're going to raise the prices of their merchandise. And that helps people a lot...right?
I will take that question as meant to be somewhat in jest since it is highly bigoted towards us who are Christians.
No, just another example of how Bush lets religion get in the way of his inability to run this country.
This was by far Bush's best performance, but neither man scored a knockout. As for the diminishing undecideds, who knows? The key is, not who won this debate, but what voters will think is more important, issues like Social Security or Iraq/War On Terror. If it's the former, Kerry wins, unless this debate and the following helps close the gap enough on domestic issues for Bush. If it's the latter, Bush will win, unless some huge event causes people to change their view on Bush's Iraq/War On Terror decisions.
It's really that simple.
What about those of us who think the war on terror is important but are upset with how much Bush has bungled it?
My thoughts about the debate:
I thought John Kerry did an outstanding job. I think he is wrong and misleading on some issues and dodged questions, but some of you would say the same about Bush (or worse!). But what none of you mentioned was Kerry's smirk. Bush's smirk did look more like something was wrong with his face. Kerry's was just arrogant (in my opinion). But it was not so bad with either of them that it moved me much.
I also think Bush did very well. This was by far his best debate. It was close enough I would call it a tie where your prior feelings about the candidates could push you one way or the other.
Hands down, the best answer Bush gave is the one on faith. If you can replay it, I suggest you do so but with the sound turned down. This was the "real" George Bush. He was animated. He was passionate. He was excited. He did not have to search for words like he does on other issues. His faith is real. And it makes a difference.
Kerry's answer was no where near as passionate. I do think he was sincere and that he gave a decent answer. It just lacked the passion Bush had. And that is a major difference between the two candidates.
Kerry repeated his stump speech line from the book of James about faith and works at another point in the debate. I about gagged. Kerry was trying to imply Bush does not act on his faith. The reality is, when it comes to "stated" core beliefs, Bush wins hands down. You may not like Bush's core beliefs about abortion, but his faith does work -- he opposes it. You may not like Bush's core beliefs about gay marriage, but his faith does make a difference -- he opposes it. Kerry claims to have beliefs, but they do not influence his actions. Faith/beliefs without works/actions is dead, and Kerry demonstrates that very thing.
I do believe Kerry is a man of faith. I am not judging the motives of his heart or his standing before God. What I comment on is that his actions do not match his "stated" beliefs. Abortion is the prime example. He says it is wrong, but he said he would oppose overturning Roe V. Wade. His actions demonstrate his true beliefs.
To put it differently, Bush's faith is in something beyond himself. Kerry's faith appears to be in himself and what he and others together can do. That difference was clear tonight.
In regards to Iraq, I do think Bush implied he has an agenda when it comes to freedom. I don't think it is a "crusade" where Bush will look for the next country to overthrow. Rather, I think his agenda is similar to Reagan's, to do what he can to see people gain their freedom. I agree with the belief that ultimately a people have to want to be free, you can't force it on them. But I also believe tyranny and a lack of basic freedom is always a bad thing. Another government does not have to be set up identical to ours. But it is always wrong, and ultimately evil, when basic human rights are refused.
Jim in Iowa
No, just another example of how Bush lets religion get in the way of his inability to run this country.
And you do not see yourself as bigoted? Bush's faith is what guides him, and he had not tried to hide it. You can go back to the 2000 debates. Ignore the rhetoric against right wing Christians and listen to what he says. You will find foundational core beliefs. When people voted for him, they clearly knew where he stood and what he believed. He did not sneak into office by hiding his beliefs from anyone.
In regards to the question, I would suggest some of you are out of step with America in general. Well over 70% of the general population have no problem with spoken prayer being returned to the public school or with prayers being offered at football games. If these issues came up for a vote, they would win by a landslide. Instead, they are outlawed by activist liberal judges.
Do you consider 70% of the population delusional or ignorant or just plain stupid because they believe in prayer? Bush clearly was not pandering tonight. He deeply believed what he was saying about prayer. And what he said will connect well with the overwhelming majority of Americans.
Jim in Iowa
Den,
Well, that's what I mean, Den. If Kerry can close the gap with people like you on the War on Terror, then that negates Bush's biggest advantages. He is still ahead on traditional Democratic issues, so he would win.
Likewise, if Bush's margin in the War on Terror/strong leader/Iraq stays the way it is, and he can at least reduce the gap with the soccer moms and other trditional Democrats, then he wins.
PAD expressed some doubts over Bush throwing Kerry's "global test" comment back in his face. Here's Kerry's quote from the first debate:
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
PAD, your debate analysis has been pretty fair overall, but I think you've got this one wrong. Kerry is effectively defining the legitimacy of American military action by a global standard of legitimacy (i.e. if you can't take military action for legitimate reasons, then it doesn't pass the global test, and you shouldn't do it.) That, to me, sounds like a global veto.
And unfortunately, the legitimacy bar in Europe seems to be set very high (in a low sort of way). Consider this recent BBC story (skip to the end for the relevant European liberal squeamishness):
US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.
The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.
They are seeking evidence to try Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity.
"It is my personal opinion that this is a killing field," Greg Kehoe, an American working with the IST, told reporters in Hatra, south of the city of Mosul.
"Someone used this field on significant occasions over time to take bodies up there, and to take people up there and execute them."
The victims are believed to be Kurds killed in 1987-88, their bodies bulldozed into the graves after being summarily shot dead.
Iraq's Kurds are hoping for justice at last
Mr Kehoe said that work to uncover graves around Iraq, where about 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam Hussein's regime, was slow as experienced European investigators were not taking part.
The Europeans, he said, were staying away as the evidence might be used eventually to put Saddam Hussein to death.
Do we really want to pass these kinds of global tests? By this measure, we can forget going after guys who kill scores of children and put them in mass graves because an evil dictator might get killed. I know one EU membership requirement is to not have a death penalty, but hello, we're not talking about a democracy with Iraq. Such niceties don't apply. Take a stand. Grow a spine.
Really, if Kerry wasn't serious about this "global test=global veto" nonsense, he would never have brought it up in the first place. You don't go within a mile of that stuff unless you really want a "one happy world" U.S./EUtopia. Kerry screwed up with that comment and Bush is correct to beat him senseless with it.
-Dave O'Connell
jumpthecup.blogspot.com
Canadian Health Care.
5 hour waits in Emergency with my screaming 3 year old.
3 months to get an MRI for my bad knee.
Peter, this is really of the subject, but I just read the Synopsis for your upcoming New Frontier Book, and I'm left with just one question. Did I miss something between "Stone and Anvil", and "After the Fall"??
I have a question: How many bills does the average Senator sponsor? Even giving Kerry full credit that he is not exaggerating, saying he sponsored and/or wrote 55 bills in 20 years seems rather pathetic. It is better than the 5 the Republicans claim, but that was one area where Kerry was really grasping for a lifeline.
If Kerry is elected, I have seen nothing of the true leadership he claims he has. Bush accomplished quite a bit in his 4 years, including the 2 years when Republicans did not control the Senate. I still fear his judicial appointments, but I doubt his ability to bring the Republicans over for his full agenda. Kerry lacks the charisma of Bill Clinton. It would be four years and out.
I think a lot of Kerry's "bounce" is somewhat inflated by the media coverage of the debates. It would not surprise me if Bush won by a decent margin come November 2 (assuming there are no big last minute surprises).
One more comment: I thought tonight's moderator did a great job, better than the two before him. He seemed to better follow up both sides of the issues with both candidates. I agree the last question was an easy one, but I think it was a good one. It made both candidates human. I think Bush's love for his wife was more evident, but Kerry's response was also sincere. I don't doubt Kerry loves his wife, but Bush was clearly more passionate about it.
Looking back at all 3 debates together, it is clear that Kerry won in the way he needed to: He redefined himself as more human and moderate. The fact that he needed to says a lot, but the fact he pulled if off says even more about both candidates.
Jim in Iowa
adam schwartz: of note: bush said he does not recall his statement that he was not concerned about osama bin laden, and claimed it was one of those "exagerrations."
also of note: Bush, on CNN from 2002:
"I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
Luigi Novi: What he said was that he never said he wasn’t “worried” about him, which is the word Kerry used. While technically true, it’s really nothing more than hairsplitting, since they mean the same thing.
Christina: I know a family that live in Italy, which has a government controlled health care system. They had their first child there and they hated it so much that they came to the States for the birth of their second child. They also come here if they need serious medical attention.
Luigi Novi: When I visited Italy this past April, the only thing I got from conversations with my cousin’s friends from work when we all went out one night was that they didn’t like Silvio Berlusconi, but I’ve never heard anyone mention problems with health care, and the reason my parents and other family members emigrated here was to start new lives, not just for births. That’s very interesting, Christina. The last time I went to Italy six years ago, I asked about politics there, and my godparents and cousin had some knowledge of it, but not that much of an interest in it, but I think I’ll email my cousin and ask her about it, as she volunteers for The Red Cross.
Bill Mulligan: Some look at Ted Kennedy and see a man of towering conviction, while I see someone who should be in the final panel of an EC comic, going "Aieeeee!" as the waterlogged corpse of Mary Jo Kopechne drags him into a pool of quicksand.
Luigi Novi: LOL! Good one, Bill!
Fred Chamberlain: Bush "feels" people praying for him? I need to take another look at the DSM-IV and other criteria for schizophrenia.
Luigi Novi: I need to take another look at the criteria for bigotry.
JamesLynch: However, does anyone see a contradiction between Bush's "culture of life" (opposing abortion) and supporting capital punishment?
Luigi Novi: Well, I’m pro-choice and pro-death penalty (ideally, at least, when everyone can get the same good defense, and innocent executions are nonexistent—until then I’d accept a moratorium), and no, I don’t see a contradiction, even if pro-choicers and anti-death penalty advocates try to use this argumentative tactic. I don’t share pro-lifers/pro-deathers’ position, but I understand that they simply feel that fetuses are innocent, and convicted murderers are not. I explain my position on these two issues without using this fallacy. That’s just me. :-)
Craig J. Ries: No, just another example of how Bush lets religion get in the way of his inability to run this country.
Luigi Novi: While I do believe he may be guilty of this, how does the above quote constitute a legitimate example of it? Saying that he feels people praying for him means he’s letting religion “get in the way”? How do you figure this?
Jim in Iowa: Kerry claims to have beliefs, but they do not influence his actions.
Luigi Novi: Sure they do. He simply doesn’t try to force other people to live by them. Big difference.
Jim in Iowa: Well over 70% of the general population have no problem with spoken prayer being returned to the public school or with prayers being offered at football games.
Luigi Novi: Then well over 70% of the general population should be overjoyed to know that spoken prayer in public schools and prayers at school football games are perfectly legal.
Having school officials conduct them is not.
This is a distinction that pro-organized prayer advocates constantly deliberately ignore, a testament to their intellectual dishonesty.
Jim in Iowa: If these issues came up for a vote, they would win by a landslide.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, that’s called tyranny of the majority. Most enlightened people knowledgeable enough about how the American system of law works, particularly vis a vis the Separation of Church and State, understand this, and correctly know that this is why we don’t have such issues come up for a popular vote, which would be un-American.
Jim in Iowa: Instead, they are outlawed by activist liberal judges.
Luigi Novi: Who obviously know what they’re talking about. Good for them.
Jim in Iowa: Do you consider 70% of the population delusional or ignorant or just plain stupid because they believe in prayer?
Luigi Novi: No, I consider those who want to force school officials in non-Christian schools to conduct them (as if school children are somehow too incompetent or helpless to do so on their own initiative—in homeroom, between classes, at lunch, at study hall, during gym if they’re on the bench, or any other time outside of school hours) to be theistically bigoted, and anti-American with regards to Separation of Church and State.
Canadian health care: I think overall we think it's great. I think it's great. Yes, not perfect, but I did a comparison with a friend of mine from San Diego and for what I get for about $120 CDN a month he has to pay $220 US. That being said, if I earned $16,000 or less, I wouldn't have to pay anything to get basic coverage.
Minimum wage: well, here in British Columbia it's $8.00 an hour and last I checked our economy was doing fine.
"activist" judges: funny how I'm sure that when judges in the US (or Canada for that matter) uphold archconservative values, they don't get deemed to be "activists." I mean, the whole notion of "activist" being a dirty word is a nasty creation of the mainstream media, (over)run as it is by conservative corporations. Judges who issue decisions which are labelled "liberal" are no more "activists" than those who pass judgments labelled "conservative." It's up to judges to interpret the law... just because some people don't like those interpretations doesn't mean the judiciary is overstepping its bounds. You want to talk "activist" judges? Who effectively decided the last US election... and which wing, right or left, of which court was it that did?
Well over 70% of the general population have no problem with spoken prayer being returned to the public school or with prayers being offered at football games. If these issues came up for a vote, they would win by a landslide. Instead, they are outlawed by activist liberal judges.
Which makes me very glad that there's that First Amendment to the Constitution forbidding government-sponsored prayer and other religious actions. As someone once put it, as long as there are exams, there will be prayer in schools. But it has to come from individuals, not the governmental system. And that's not a "activist liberal judges" thing. That's a stated very clearly part of the Constitution thing. And strict, literal, meaning of the Constitution is usually considered a "conservative judge" thing.
And, btw, as it happens, I personally came very close to being ordered to say a prayer at my (public) high school graduation. Worse, it wouldn't even have been a group prayer, but me, solo, on stage (yes, this was illegal as all get out, but I also didn't have the resources to do a legal challenge), due to my class rank. I managed to get out of it, but it wasn't easy. How would you feel if you were ordered at a school ceremony to, say, say a prayer to Allah? Or to a Hindu god? Or any god other than your particular one?
This sort of desire is very common in theocracies. If you're in one, you better hope your particular god lines up with the official one.
His faith is real. And it makes a difference.
And that frightens me a lot. Consider this; you like that Bush has a faith that you share. OK, now, imagine that Bush has just as strong a faith in something you don't share. Overly strong "faith" (in the general sense, not specific to Bush's religion) amounts to zealotism. I prefer someone who'll at least consider if facts get in the way of their faith. And Bush is exhibiting, to me, an overreliance on general faith. His whole take on Iraq at the moment amounts to "Have faith in me and my advisors, and it'll work out. I have faith in my people."
It's all anyone can do to send you to the following link, updated every Wednesday:
PAD wrote:
"And I'll tell you, I was dubious about the whole Bush-listening device thing, but there were moments when it really did look like Bush was listening to someone else talking...Ah well. I dunno."
That 'thing' showing on the back of Bush is called a spine. Something Kerry is lacking. ;)
I thought this was the most even of the three debates - and Bush's best.
Lost was really on? It wasn't pre-empted by the debate? Is this a west coast/east coast thing?
Canadian health care
Hasn't the complaint about it been that you don't pay in money but in time, that beyond certain basic health services you have a long wait?
Global test
In speeches or interviews since Kerry used the phrase, has he said a) what happens if a national leader fails such a test b) who does the judging of such a test or standard c) why he voted against Iraq War 1 aka Desert Storm, which presumably passed such a test d) why he voted for the Iraq War 2 which presumably he feels failed such a test and e) why he said just last August he would have still voted to authorize the Bush to go to war in hingsight know all the failure and hardships that would ensue?
Factcheck.org
Hasn't the website shown that not only do both Bush and Kerry cite distorted or misleading "facts" but do so repeatedly after they have been ... factchecked?
-- Ken from Chicago
The White House has said that the President was not wearing any protective gear at the first debate.
And PAD, idear is a fine ole Massasuchusetts tradition. It is like our secret handshake to recognize other people from the state.
I have no problem understanding what Kerry means by Global Test.
He means that when and if the US were to go into a preemptive action that we would have all the evidence to support that decision, we would have exhausted all other avenues and we would be beyond reproach when it came to the facts of the matter. Unlike what we have had with the mess in Iraq.
His global test isn't about getting international permission its about being able to go before the international community as well as the citizens of the US and not get caught stretching the truth or manipulating facts.
Re: Canadian healthcare
As a Canadian who has lived in the U.S. five out of the last ten years, I have to say that I vastly prefer our medical system.
I've never been in line for anything major in the U.S., but for everything up to and including broken bones, the wait times have been roughly equivalent.
Furthermore, I found the quality of the service in the U.S. to be much lower, and much more oriented on what they could sell you -- e.g. drugs, expensive physiotherapy, etc.
For things like mental healthcare, U.S. doctors are no better than drug pushers. I was amazed at the amount of people I know in the U.S. who are on a steady diet of antidepressants, as compared to Canada, drugs that are often prescribed after no more than a single meeting. It's positively freakish.
In my experience, Canadians who complain about our healthcare system do so from a place of ignorance. They believe the media rhetoric that the U.S. system is so much better.
It isn't.
"The White House has said that the President was not wearing any protective gear at the first debate."
I'm pretty sure they lied. If either Kerry or Bush is walking around without protective gear they should be immediately disqualified on the basis of reckless stupidity.
"I'm pretty sure they lied. If either Kerry or Bush is walking around without protective gear they should be immediately disqualified on the basis of reckless stupidity"
I agree, in this day and age almost every public figure should wear a vest and even more so as far as the President is concerned.
Do you think that maybe they are denying the body armor theory because they feel that it would diminish Bush's "macho cowboy" image?
Canadian Health care in a nut shell:
Long waits, absolutely no debt.
Personal experience:
2 Years ago when my wife and I had our son, she was booked in the hospital for 3.5 day weekend to have a C-section. She was supposed to have a semi-private (re: shared) room, but because of her allergy to latex she/we were bumped up to a completely private room at no cost.
How much does 3.5 days, plus a surgical procedure cost is an American hospital? Doesn't it seem wrong to have to worry about that?
There was no cost to us and we never saw a bill or were told of the costs. Even if we had both been unemployed, we would have had the same experience and would not have had to worry about the cost.
Somethings should not be about profit in my opinion.
Fred Chamberlain: Bush "feels" people praying for him? I need to take another look at the DSM-IV and other criteria for schizophrenia.
Luigi Novi: I need to take another look at the criteria for bigotry.
While you may want to do this, I'll point out, since Jim brought it up as well, that it was said tonue-in-cheek.
No bigotry here. See my responses to "Hey, What'd I Miss" thread if you have any real interest.
Oops, sent before finished....
I have no issue with any man's beliefs unless they negatively affect others. Bush's statement seemed out of place and alarming to me as a positiver reinforcer and affirmation of his choices. I wonder if he feels the millions of people who pray in opposition to the administration's actions.
I watched part of the debate last night- fist and last time... I can't stand Bush'
s voice or that smirk. By 10 pm, I was ready to throw a brick at the TV. BTW, on the litmus test - Bush claims that abortion isn't one thing he'd claim he use to appoint a judge and says that Kerry would use it as a litmus test. Kerry, however did not say tha the would appoint judges only that supported abortion rights - just that he would not appoint a judge who thought that his or her right to make someon else do something according to his/her personal beliefs.
All that being said, I like Kerry's speaking manner better - he speaks without a noticable accent, pronounces words correctly and uses proper grammar - that should be a litmus test for president (and why is that phrase one that the president beat to death? Does anyone use litmus paper anymore?)
To put it differently, Bush's faith is in something beyond himself. Kerry's faith appears to be in himself and what he and others together can do. That difference was clear tonight.
And that's part of the reason I dislike Bush - all his faith is in something else. So when he fails, he has something/somebody else to blame.
And as others have said, it disturbs me greatly when he wants to run this country based on his faith, not in himself, but on the belief in a higher being that I don't necessary believe in.
Yes, the difference is clear, and it reaffirms my reasons to vote for Kerry.
[B]"Well over 70% of the general population have no problem with spoken prayer being returned to the public school or with prayers being offered at football games"[/B]
This whole issue of legalized prayer in school have always baffled me.
Over 20 years ago I attended a [B]public[/B] school. After morning announcements we would have
"A Moment of Silent Medatation".
Simple enough.
If you wanted to pray, in whatever religion, GREAT. If not, FINE. So what's the big deal? Why should there be
special spoken prayer? Isn't religion, the faith in your god PRIVATE??? Isn't a belief a PERSONAL thing?
Organized spoken prayer in the school is a NON issue.
It's another one of those non issues that's used to steer us away from pressing problems in our school that need to be dealt with.
"Jim in Iowa: Well over 70% of the general population have no problem with spoken prayer being returned to the public school or with prayers being offered at football games.
Luigi Novi: Then well over 70% of the general population should be overjoyed to know that spoken prayer in public schools and prayers at school football games are perfectly legal."
Actually, spoken prayers ate school football games are illegal. If a player, on his own, decided to pick up a mike and say "excuse me, I'd like to say a quick prayer before the game", the school could get sued. How do I know? It's happened. Here. In OKLAHOMA of all places.
I mean God forbid someone get offended. Are we an entire country of 3 year olds? I would not be offended by a Muslim or Catholic or Jewish prayer before a game. Especially one motivated by students, not the school.
Atheism is becoming a religion unto itself to many people, and the courts have began to enforce it. Fireman can't hang crosses over their beds, Policement can't celebrate Christmas at their work. People are no longer as free to express their religion as they used to be. It's as bad as any other freedom of speech being trampled on. And it's amazing. People and groups get up in arms to protect a comic book store in Oklahoma who sells child Snuff Comics and leaves them laying around where kids can get them, yet don't say a word when children who gather at the flagpole before school for a prayer get told they have to leave school grounds.
"I just wanted to add that my roommate thinks that bulge on Bush's back is an armoured vest. He has military experience, so I trust his judgement on this."
I think its part of the control collar Chaney is useing to keep Bush in line. Every time he's about to say something that would throw the election, Chaney gives him a shock. Those wern't smirks during the debate, they were grimiaces
Here's what I got out of the debate on Bush's "domestic agenda."
Moderator: Mr President, what do you think about raising the minimum wage?
Bush: Well, my No Child Left Behind plan is a jobs program when you think about it.
Mod: What do you say the 45 million uninsured Americans?
Bush: Well, my No Child Left Behind plan is a health care program when you think about it.
Mod: What do you think about affirmative action?
Bush: My No Child Left Behind plan is a social justice program when you think about it.
Mod: What about workers who are being outsourced?
Bush: No Child Left Behind.
Mod: Do you like candy?
Bush: No Child Left Behind.
Mod: Your closing statement, please.
Bush: When I met Laura at a barbecue in Midland, TX, I remember saying to her that if I could just get Congress to pass my No Child Left Behind plan, we wouldn't have any domestic problems at all.
"Do you think that maybe they are denying the body armor theory because they feel that it would diminish Bush's "macho cowboy" image?'
Perhaps, though it would also be an invitation for any would-be assassin to take only headshots.
"There was no cost to us and we never saw a bill or were told of the costs. Even if we had both been unemployed, we would have had the same experience and would not have had to worry about the cost.
Somethings should not be about profit in my opinion."
Nice thought but where will we get advances in medicine or for that matter, future doctors? If drug companies are told they will not be allowed to make profits they will go into something more lucrative--advertising breakfast cereal or video games, whatever.
My ex-wife is a doctor and while she makes a good living compared to most, she is hardly rolling in dough. In fact, considering the amount of education, stress and time it took to get to where she is, her income is way too small.
"he speaks without a noticable accent, pronounces words correctly and uses proper grammar - that should be a litmus test for president"
One could come up with an impressive list of former presidents who would fall short of that lofty standard.
I think both the best and worst moments of the debate came from Kerry. When he thanked Bush for his leadership on 9/11 and Bush silently mouthed a "thank you", that was great. very classy. Then he goes and bizarely brings up Mary Cheney, apparently the only gay person that he and John Edwards knows. What a tool.
on a serious note:
"Canadian health care
Hasn't the complaint about it been that you don't pay in money but in time, that beyond certain basic health services you have a long wait?"
I have a 4 and a half month old son. The pediatrician we tired to use for his regual check ups had our first check up a week late, and could only schedule the 4 month check up t 6 months, and the 6 mo check up at close to 10 months of age. We ended up just useing our regular doctor because her schedule is only about a 2 week wait. However her average waiting room wait is an hour to an hour and a half after your scheduled time. After all that we also pay more. hmmmm yea the canadian helth care system is soooooo worng. Right. No wait with the birth of my son, I'll end up paying over 3000.00 in cash this year that was not cover by my insurance because I .... uh went to the doctor.... my wife had the baby in a hospital, rather than the more insurance friendly economical back seat of a taxi.... huh thats funny isn't it.
Special question from yer daughter:
If Kerry is sooooooooo liberal, like, the most liberal dude in the Senate as my favorite Good Ole Boy keeps telling me, how can he be such a flip flopper? If he were waffling or canoodling or whatever you want to call it, wouldn't his track record be all over the place and make it, therefore, impossible to pin him as a liberal? Huh? I don't get it.
RE: Prayer in school
A couple of you read into my post something I never said. I personally have no agenda to restore prayer in school or at football games. I don't think it is the crisis either side thinks it is.
My point was if 70% of Americans are in favor of prayer in school, they are not going to think the President is scary or weird for saying he "feels" it when people pray for him.
Jim in Iowa
My only thought about prayer at football games is that every time I hear about the it, I picture God going over his "to do" list:
1) Bring about peace in the Middle East.
2) Cure Timmy Johnson's cancer.
3) End world hunger.
4) Make sure the Midland, TX Pitbulls win the state championship.
Actually, spoken prayers ate school football games are illegal. If a player, on his own, decided to pick up a mike and say "excuse me, I'd like to say a quick prayer before the game", the school could get sued. How do I know? It's happened. Here. In OKLAHOMA of all places.
I can see both sides of this issue. I would be uncomfortable if a Buddhist or Muslim got up and said a prayer. But I would not feel threatened. I would not feel the government was sponsoring a religion. It is sad to me that many of the liberals who preach "tolerance" are the most intolerant of any religious expression. There is no excuse for someone to be sued simply because a student wanted to offer a prayer at a school football game. Funny how those who don't like Christianity have no problem imposing their morality on others.
Jim in Iowa
4) Make sure the Midland, TX Pitbulls win the state championship.
Well, the Bible does say that if even a sparrow falls to the ground, God knows and cares. So since at least one play is sure to be pounded pretty hard into the turf, and a person is of at least as much value as a sparrow to God, then I would say he is paying attention to the game.
Most football game prayers do not consist of, "God, help us kick the, umm, rear ends of our opponents." They are generally asking for safety and fair play and good sportsmanship, etc.
Now the prayers of the parents and coaches on the sidelines during the game . . .
Jim in Iowa
Obviously, the previous post should have said:
So since at least one player
Sort of like your tolerance for those who repeatedly explain and present proof that the bible is fiction while you insist it's purely trutful and historic?
Am I alone in thinking Bush's smirk was kinda unnessasary and a bit creepy? Now, I dont want an emotionless Vulcan being President, but damn, your a President, try to be a bit more serious in presenting things. The constant "s**t eating grin" got on my nerves after a bit, maybe because im not sure he understands when he says certain things with a smile (like saying he's protecting the borders, or anything about education) he doesn't seem very modest.
Kerry really dissapointed me at times though, because he let alot of things pass to easy. I dont understand why he doesn't get more agressive on cetain topics, but maybe he's got a cooler head than Bush does when he's directly challenged.
Jerry wrote:
**Here. In OKLAHOMA of all places.**
Really? Where and when? I'm not being facetious. I'm in Oklahoma, and I want to know, so I can look it up.
Travis
I know why Bush was blinking so much...
He felt bad that the Red Sox weren't in Fenway Park to attempt to steal signs so he was trying to give them pitch location!
:)
Mike
Most football game prayers do not consist of, "God, help us kick the, umm, rear ends of our opponents." They are generally asking for safety and fair play and good sportsmanship, etc.
If you want to pray for safety and good sportsmanship, that's fine, but I have seen prayers before football games that were about "God, help us win this game." I've also seen players thank the Lord for making a spectacular catch. It bothers me because it implies that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game. If God favors the Midland Pitbulls, does that mean that East Midland Sharks are in league with the devil?
Granted, I happen to believe that is the case with the Dallas Cowboys and the NY Yankees, but we can save that discussion for another thread.
"Really? Where and when? I'm not being facetious. I'm in Oklahoma, and I want to know, so I can look it up. "
It happened with the Edmond High School football games in the late 90's. Not long after the whole city seal debacle.
Granted, I happen to believe that is the case with the Dallas Cowboys and the NY Yankees, but we can save that discussion for another thread.
With the Cowboys building a new stadium (they hope) in Arlington, we will see if they leave the hole in the stadium for God to watch. :-) Go Cowboys!
Jim in Iowa (formerly known as Jim in Dallas)
Sort of like your tolerance for those who repeatedly explain and present proof that the bible is fiction while you insist it's purely trutful and historic?
Sorry, I did not know trying to defend my position on an issue was being intollerant.
Jim in Iowa
Did anyone else notice that Bush was frothing at the mouth for the first half of the debate? I found it quite amusing, especially when he was getting worked up and smacking the podium.
It bothers me because it implies that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game.
No, it implies that some people believe that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game. Prayer prayed does not equal prayer answered.
Jeff
**It happened with the Edmond High School football games in the late 90's. Not long after the whole city seal debacle.**
Right. Forgot about it... like I try to forget Edmond exists, even though I technically live there.
Debacle is a word that really explains the city seal. If, just if, the city had said "This is part of our heritage, and this is part of our history. Why shouldn't we have this cross on our seal?" I may not have liked it, but at least I'd understand it.
But making the statement: "A Cross Represents All Faiths," is well... dumb. dumber than dumb.
And the lawsuit was not in Oklahoma, it was just enforced in Oklahoma at that time and was brought up because Ernie Istook tried to pass an ammendment called the "Religious Freedom Amendment"... (The actual lawsuit was based out of Rhode Island)... it just was brought to light here at that time.
Most people were up in arms about it around here. What it was talking about was the pre-game prayer at football games. If it's broadcast across the stadium, done at a school sponsored event, then does it cross the line of separation of state?
Anyway, my two cents... sorry I went on too long.
Travis
Idear? IDEAR? Kerry can say "nuclear," but he can't say "idea?"
Yes, he did say "idear." However, as I remember it, it seemed to be in the context of a quote. I could not figure out if he was trying to say it like the person he was quoting was saying it. It didn't work if that was what he was trying.
It was not as obvious as some of Bush's mispronounciations, but it did stand out.
Jim in Iowa
**It bothers me because it implies that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game.
No, it implies that some people believe that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game. Prayer prayed does not equal prayer answered.
****
Silly humans, everyone knows God favors only sides in NCAA Basketball teams... And he wears Orange and Black. (OkState)... all other sports, he's not that interested in.
Travis
oh, and reference to the first post:
In 1992, Oklahomans were told that the U.S. Supreme Court banned prayers at graduation services, arising from a prayer offered at a Rhode Island Middle School.
As fall football games rolled around, state Superintendent Sandy Garrett said the court decision meant no non-denominational invocations, no voluntary moments of silence, no anything that could be confused with intermixing a school event with a religious act.
In 1994, Rep. Ernest Istook introduced a proposed amendment, constitutionally protecting free exercise of prayer in schools and other public institutions. However, the resolution stalled in the House.
Four years later, Istook is attempting again this week to bring a Religious Freedom Amendment before the House. The congressman concedes that it takes numerous tries before any Amendment to the Constitution is ratified
1998 Edmond Sun.
----
Travis
I did think Bush got a little too deep into the religion question, it might have swayed some more undecided to Kerry's favor. Especially concidering the whole Stem Cell/Abortion/Church and State Seperation accusations that have been brought against Bush since he first came into office. Personally, I dont have issues with individuals having religious beliefs, but I have an issue when our leaders base their decisions on imput from higher powers. Consultations with God should not be in any Presidents daily schedule.
No, it implies that some people believe that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game.
Now you're just playing semantics. That is what I was meaning. People who pray for victory in football games are implying that (in their minds) that God plays favorites in football games.
So are there any presidential candidates that don't distort the truth? It appears the gentlemen who debated are pretty good distorters.
With the Cowboys building a new stadium (they hope) in Arlington, we will see if they leave the hole in the stadium for God to watch. :-) Go Cowboys!
I fully expect that when the old stadium is demolished, demons will pour out the hole.
I hate and despise the Cowboys.
Go Eagles!
Getting back to the debate, my nomination for the most idiotic statement of last night was Bush's cop-out on the letting the assault weapon ban expire by blaming it on Tom Delay telling him there weren't enough votes to renew it. This gave Kerry a perfect opening to argue about how he would have fought for it and how it is supported by most law enforcement agencies. He even got to tell a story about going hunting with a sheriff and a drug bust.
So Kerry was able to portray himself as someone who could take charge and fight for what he believed in, a supporter of law enforcement, and a hunter while Bush looked like an ineffective leader who couldn't get a popular law renewed despite his party controlling both houses of Congress.
If Bush had said, "I believe the assault weapons ban was a bad law and here is why," I could have respected his stand on conviction, but to puss out and hide behind Tom Delay's skirt was just pathetic.
"Funny how those who don't like Christianity have no problem imposing their morality on others."
Jim in Iowa, your statement IMO would have more impact if it read:
"Funny how those who don't like ________(fill in any religious or non religious belief) have no problem imposing their morality on others."
Bush's smirk was loathsome throughout the debate. Almost bad enough to make me ignore the fact that John Kerry said, when speaking about immigration concerns, "It is against the law in this country to hire people illegally."
No kidding. You could look it up.
"I fully expect that when the old stadium is demolished, demons will pour out the hole."
I pry for all our sakes that Buffy the vampire sayer is in the dallas metro area that day!
"Almost bad enough to make me ignore the fact that John Kerry said, when speaking about immigration concerns, "It is against the law in this country to hire people illegally."
Well technically that is true. lol
There is a difference between praying for yourself, in your own way, and announcing your prayer to a stadium full of people whether they want to hear it or not.
The same applies to kids reading a prayer over a loudspeaker in a school or wanting everybody to hold hands and sing "Koombaya" before class.
It's the same respect people want when you're on a public bus, and people are listening to headphones - not everybody wants to hear what you're listening to.
Keep it to yourself.
Consultations with God should not be in any Presidents daily schedule.
Actually, it should be in every President's schedule and thankfully, has been in most!
Shana--Bush would argue that Kerry has been flipflopping between extremel liberal and moderate liberal. So he can still tag him as an evil lilberal AND as someone who changes his mind.
Me, I'm still frustrated that once again, Kerry passed the opportunity to slam Bush, who boasted of creating the Homeland Security Department, that it was a concept that languished in the Bush White House for nine months simply because it was an idea from the departing Clinton administration. Bush elevated his own bias above the good of the nation and then has the stones to take credit for it belatedly while accusing KERRY of changing his mind on issues?
PAD
"Consultations with God should not be in any Presidents daily schedule.
Actually, it should be in every President's schedule and thankfully, has been in most!"
Yeah, 'cause it's great when world leaders engage in delusional practices to help "lead" their nations...
They're supposed to be the leaders, not following the non-existant invisible man in the sky...
Although it'd be hilarious if Allah appeared at the Press Conference before George Bush and said "Ha, you infidel, you picked the wrong god!" and turned him into a pillar of salt, and then turned on the sprinkler system...
Personally, I dont have issues with individuals having religious beliefs, but I have an issue when our leaders base their decisions on imput from higher powers. Consultations with God should not be in any Presidents daily schedule.
Do you realize how out of touch that statement is with both the majority of the public and with American history? If God exists (and no, you don't have to believe that he does), why would it be such a dangerous thing to "consult" with him (or whatever pronoun you want to use)? Why is it so dangerous to believe there is something greater than ourselves? The Founding Fathers clearly believed there was and stated this in the Declaration of Independence.
It is oxymoronic to say it is ok to have religious beliefs, they just should not matter (at least not if you are a leader). That is really what the comment above means. The fact that Bush prays and looks to God for guidance does not mean he will do something rash or extreme (nor that he won't). The fact that someone is "reasoned" and "logical" does not mean someone will not be a tyrant. Go reread the history of WW2 Germany and of Communist Russia. Hitler was not a Christian (most historians believe he was heavily into the occult), and Stalin was also not a Christian. Both used "human logic" and reasoning (not a consultation with a "higher power") to perpretate some of the greatest atrocities of the last century.
This fear of Christians who pray and who look to God ignores the fact that all of the major wars in the last century were for secular, not religious reasons. Strong Christians were a significant portion of those who established this country with its freedom of religion.
Jim in Iowa
Yeah, 'cause it's great when world leaders engage in delusional practices to help "lead" their nations...
They're supposed to be the leaders, not following the non-existant invisible man in the sky...
See, y'know, I respect everyone's right to have beliefs. And I respect a lot of people's beliefs. The fact that I am not a Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Wiccan, Athiest, Pagan or anything like that, does not hinder me from allowing people to believe what they believe. But because I do believe in civility, I don't believe in belittiling a person's faith.
Faith is something that the majority of people in America have. Whether I agree with them or not, over 70% of American's believe themselves to be religious and/or spiritual.
So if a leader uses prayer and his faith to help him lead the country, I have no issue with it at all.
I do have issues with the way Bush has handled it, but I do have issues with the concept of wearing your religion on your sleeve. But that's neither here nor there... my point is this: Statements like the above are exactly like the statements made that "You're Going to Hell/Sheol/Be Reincarnated as a cockroach if you don't believe the way I do."
Faith is faith. It's believing in things you have no proof of. If you believe there is no god, that's faith. Because you have no proof there isn't a god. If you believe there is one, same deal.
So let's not get into religious flames. No one wins.
My Opinion As Always.
Travis
Thank God I'm not religious! Otherwise, I'd have a tough time chosing either candidate!
:)
Oh, and firm Kerry backer here.
Travis:
>So let's not get into religious flames. No one wins.
amen ;)
There is a difference between praying for yourself, in your own way, and announcing your prayer to a stadium full of people whether they want to hear it or not.
In other words, there is freedom of speech, just not religious speech.
As I said above, I understand how public prayer makes some uncomfortable. So does saying the pledge of allegiance or singing the National Anthem or flying the flag. I am against an imposition of religion where someone else is forced to worship (as in made to say a prayer, attend a church service, be baptized, or engage in other clearly religious practices), but I am also against my right to worship being surpressed because someone does not like that I do so publicly (such as praying at a graduation).
Personally, I do not live or die over prayer in schools or at football games. I do have a problem with the growing restrictions on my rights to express myself as a Christian.
Did you know that until 1954, churches were allowed to talk about political candidates, and somehow, our democracy survived? Now, if a church were to say that they are pro-life and that Kerry is not, they would risk their tax exempt status. When John Hancock, one of the founding fathers was asked for a list of who he felt were instrumental in establishing this great nation, his list included a large number of ministers. It is a fact that 24 out of 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were seminary graduates. Some of the strongest proponents of freedom for slaves and for religious freedom were pastors during revolutionary times. President James Garfield was a minister who had preached at revival meetings!
Congress has opened with prayer for over 200 years and we have somehow survived. I suspect we will continue to survive as long as there is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
Jim in Iowa
>Congress has opened with prayer for over 200 years and we have somehow survived. I suspect we will continue to survive as long as there is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
>Jim in Iowa
I have no problems with being surrounded by people practicing whatever type of spirituality they'd like. I agree with much of what you say as well as the above statement. I also am aware that morality is largely guided by religious background and belief. Again, I have no concern for this. What does concern me is when it is blatantly and publicly utilized as a justification or support for legal or international actions. Not only does it not represent me, whcih really is not my main problem here, but it alienates people from one another. Although placating the world around us shouldn't be the issue, being aware that Christianity and even Americans as a minorty in a larger world should be at least a consideration. When a president or any leader either doesn't show an awareness of this and an understanding of the the effects or reactions it potentially may ellicit from the global community, I have serious concerns.
Currently, I have very serious concerns.
Fred
Jim in Iowa -
but I am also against my right to worship being surpressed because someone does not like that I do so publicly
Again, I have to shake my head in wonder.
No one can EVER supress your right to worship. If you're sitting on a bus, walking through the park or sitting on your couch at home, you can be worshiping your god/religion.
If your faith is strong, you don't NEED to publicly worship. What's the point, God can only hear you if you're in a church?
He can't hear you when you pray silently to yourself?
This has always been my question to anyone of faith.
And they can never answer it.
No one can EVER supress your right to worship. If you're sitting on a bus, walking through the park or sitting on your couch at home, you can be worshiping your god/religion.
I agree with the core idea of your point. I am talking about public expressions of that worship. Just go to a very large number of countries around the world (such as China) where you can be thrown into prison simply for having 12 friends come to your house for a private, quiet worship service. I don't take my religious freedom for granted.
One more example: It is absurd for the government to say a church cannot endorse a candidate. It can be a good thing when a religion is engaged with the culture and working to make it better. Clearly there will different opinions on what that looks like, but I guarantee there will be churches on both sides. We do not have a monolithic religion here that can dominate the culture as some countries (such as England) have.
Jim in Iowa
Posted by: Bill Mulligan
"Nice thought but where will we get advances in medicine or for that matter, future doctors? If drug companies are told they will not be allowed to make profits they will go into something more lucrative--advertising breakfast cereal or video games, whatever."
Actually the idea that -healthcare must be run based on profit meaning whoever can pay more will receive better health care- is necessary to fund medical research and Drug-company research, is a myth.
In Canada we have multi-billion dollar drug companies, an example off the top of my head is BMO. They make profits, they conduct research, etc. but the bottom line is anyone in this country whether working or not has health coverage.
Another poster mentioned having to pay $30 000 out his own pocket to have a baby, had that been the case I would not have had a child because we could not have afforded a bill like that.
Everyone hates taxes I know, but aren't they supposed to be used to pay for /provide things the individual person could never afford? Shouldn't health care fall into that category?
Isn't that why wealthy Republicans hate taxes , because they don't need help to be able to pay for the expensive things in life such as health care and education?
If your faith is strong, you don't NEED to publicly worship. What's the point, God can only hear you if you're in a church?
He can't hear you when you pray silently to yourself?
I have a simple question: Which is better? To sit and watch the World Series at home on TV, or to be there at a game in the stadium? For most people, there is something special and exciting when you can share an experience.
God will hear me anywhere, but that is not the point. This country was also founded on freedom of speech. Why is my expression of religious speech different than your freedom of speech (within common sense parameters -- I don't have the right to break into your private house and use a bull horn to say a prayer while you are trying to sleep in bed!)?
Jim in Iowa
**This country was also founded on freedom of speech. Why is my expression of religious speech different than your freedom of speech (within common sense parameters -- I don't have the right to break into your private house and use a bull horn to say a prayer while you are trying to sleep in bed!)?**
It's not Jim. It's not my cuppa, tho. I don't like it, but as PAD has expressed before, I'll fight like hell to let you keep it.
Travis
It's not Jim. It's not my cuppa, tho. I don't like it, but as PAD has expressed before, I'll fight like hell to let you keep it.
And I the same for you.
Jim in Iowa
Marc initially said:
"There was no cost to us and we never saw a bill or were told of the costs. Even if we had both been unemployed, we would have had the same experience and would not have had to worry about the cost.
Somethings should not be about profit in my opinion."
Then Bill Mulligan said:
Nice thought but where will we get advances in medicine or for that matter, future doctors? If drug companies are told they will not be allowed to make profits they will go into something more lucrative--advertising breakfast cereal or video games, whatever.
So I'M saying:
The same place they come from now- researchers at public and private institutions. You're mistaken if you think all medical research is conducted by the private sector. Furthermore, I think, at least from the content of your post, that you may be confusing state-funded medicine (which Canada does have) with State-funded prescription drug benefits, which Canada does *not* have, except for senior citizens and other high-risk groups below a certain income level.
What Canada *does* have is looser (well, looser than the USA's) regulations on making generic (no-name) copies of "brand-name" drugs. The drug companies are fighting this, as you can imagine, but the regs aren't stopping them from posting record-breaking profits year after year.
"Although it'd be hilarious if Allah appeared at the Press Conference before George Bush and said "Ha, you infidel, you picked the wrong god!" and turned him into a pillar of salt, and then turned on the sprinkler system..."
Actually it's my understanding that Allah and the God of Abraham (ie. Jesus' father) are supposed to be one and the same. So perhaps Allah would be more likely to do the old potato chip seasoning routine on some atheists. Which would still be hilarious, though probably not to the same people.
To marc and A Canuck Redux,
The post I was responding to seemed to imply--and this may have been a misreading on my part--that healthcare (which I took to include drug companies and the work they do) should be nonprofit. My thought was that this would cripple the drug industry, which has benefited us all so greatly (Life expectancy of 85+ hasn't happened because of our healthier diets, that's for sure).
The fact that drug companies in Canada are making money hand over fist means that the anti-profit theory has not been applied to them. Thus, I am unsurprised that they are continuing to better our lives.
I just don't think that it is an Ayn Rand fantasy to suggest that if Western Drug companies are suddenly expected to give up massive profits in the pursuit of drugs that could benefit millions, they may just go into other, more profitable endeavors. yes, government research will take up some slack but the best minds will usually end up at the places where they are best rewarded. Capitalism works, even if it results in the fact that some will grow rich off of new products and treatments (which bothers me not a whit--Bill Gates can have another billion dollars for all I care. Doesn't diminish my life even a tad--but look at how much pleasure the computer revolution has given me!)
I know this is slightly off the debate topic, but since Kerry & Edwards have regularly stated that the Republicans are going to try to surpress minority and democrat vote, it is appropriate.
The DNC memo asking for a pre-emptive strike has been leaked. For those of you who have not heard, the DNC manual calls for allegations of voter intimidation *BEFORE* it happens. Guess innocent until proven guilty does not count in politics. ;-)
There are plenty of examples where both sides engaged in illegal tactics over the years. This is not an issue where Democrats have a better track record than Republicans. But it is troubling for there to be what is in essence a preemptive strike with the assumption Republicans will do something. The very concept is an insult to the many workers in both parties who do not engage in such tactics.
It is important to note that there has not been a single verified example of voter intimidation in Florida in 2000. Lots of annectodal (sp?)accounts, but when it was looked into, there was no evidence that would hold up.
What would the headlines be if there was an official Republican handbookthat asserted that Democrats were going to steal the election, and that there should be preemptive action now?
Drudge did not make this up. The DNC has posted the info in context, and it does say what Drudge claims:
http://www.democrats.org/news/200410140008.html
Jim in Iowa
Actually, I'm a Libertarian. Oh, and a Buddhist. And I can't say I really pay much attention to sports...what with the whole desire (to win) and suffering thing. Live and let live I always say.
Peace
The minimum wage here in Washington is already something like $7.11, and it's higher than that in San Francisco, due to a "living wage" ordinance. I was surprised that it was nationally still so low.
GOD:
>Actually, I'm a Libertarian. Oh, and a Buddhist. And I can't say I really pay much attention to sports...what with the whole desire (to win) and suffering thing. Live and let live I always say.
IMPOSTER!!! .... or have you forgotten your words in the Old Testament?
Heh. Speaking of voter fraud affecting democrats, apparently in Nevada, some bozos have been registering voters...and throwing away the ones who are registering as Democrats.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4107720
At least the GOP there apparently had the good grace to bounce those fools on their heads as fast they could....
The DNC memo asking for a pre-emptive strike has been leaked. For those of you who have not heard, the DNC manual calls for allegations of voter intimidation *BEFORE* it happens. Guess innocent until proven guilty does not count in politics. ;-)
Uh, Jim....apparently this was NOT before it happened, as reports in Nevada and Arizona have been trickling in for the last month.
Uh, Jim....apparently this was NOT before it happened, as reports in Nevada and Arizona have been trickling in for the last month.
The exact quote is as follows: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'"
This does not refer to Nevada. It is much more generic, talking about whatever polling the place the person is working at. In other words, it says to cry "wolf" just because you feel like it. It basically say, "Cry 'foul' first and then look to see if someone actually did something wrong, since we all know Republicans are evil and they are going to anyways."
I have no problem with valid challenges. There are many reports about fradulent Democratic voter registrations as well. I personally think most of them are not deliberate attempts of fraud by the DNC, but the inevitable result when you pay people per registration you ask them to collect. The temptation to turn in a fake one or register someone 50 times (as one news report documents happening to a democratic voter who could not say no to the pleading workers who gave him sob stories about how their families need the money) would tempt some people regardless of their party affiliations.
Jim in Iowa
from the dnc website, context:
http://www.democrats.org/news/200410140008.html
part quoted on drudge:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).
• Issue a press release
i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state
ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting
• Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points
• Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics
• Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full text:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. WHAT TO LOOK FOR
In general, the goal of minority voter intimidation programs is either to provide a basis for challenging the right of people to vote just before election day or when they show up at the polls, and/or to create doubt, confusion and fear among voters about their right to vote or the location at which they can vote.
Prior to Election Day
Activities that may take place in the weeks or days leading up to election day can include:
1. Mass mailing targeted to minority communities aimed at using letters returned as undeliverable as a basis for challenging voters (on or prior to election day) based on change of residence
2. Mailings, signs, and/or phone calls targeted or concentrated in minority communities
• Providing "information" about the requirements for voting, for example, that persons not current on child support payments will not be eligible to vote, or that persons who have recently moved will not be eligible
• Providing "information" about what questions will be asked or documentation requested of voters at the polls in order to vote, e.g., that proof of citizenship will be required, or that a drivers license or lease will be required to prove residence
• Giving warnings about election offenses, i.e., that voting when ineligible to do so, or voting at the wrong place, or providing false information to election officials, etc. is a crime
• Suggesting that polling places have been changed
3. Any variation of the above in Spanish, targeted to, or appearing in, Latino communities
4. Complaints filed by Republican Party or candidates with election authorities (or police or other authorities) about volunteer registrars registering minority voters illegally
5. Attempts to encourage voters in minority communities to throw away mail-in ballots
6. Attempts to coerce voters in minority communities to turn over endorsed absentee ballots On Election Day
Activities that take place on election day itself may include:
1. Signs, posters, phone calls, and/or sound trucks giving "information" or warnings about voter requirements or eligibility and/or warning that voting when ineligible to do so is an offense, etc.
2. Concentration of numbers of Republican poll watchers or challengers in minority precincts
3. Republican poll watchers challenging every voter in minority precincts on some pretext
4. GOP poll watchers, local law enforcement officers, or persons with official looking badges or insignia stationed at polling places taking pictures, asking for names, or engaging in other types of intimidating conduct.
5. Other persons deliberately placed at polling places to harass or hassle voters
6. Efforts to create longer lines in the polls, targeted in minority communities, through means such as limiting the number of registration books; deliberately sending unregistered voters into certain polling places to create confusion and delay and/or create a scene, and thereby slow down voting at those polling places
7. Changing polling locations close to election day
8. Slower responses to voting machine breakdowns in minority precincts
II. HOW TO ORGANIZE TO PREVENT AND COMBAT VOTER INTIMIDATION
The best way to combat minority voter intimidation tactics is to prevent them from occurring in the first place and prepare in advance to deal with them should they take place on election day.
1. If there are any signs of present or expected intimidation activity, in advance of election day, launch a press program that might include the following elements:
• Prepare and distribute to the press (or have available at a press conference, see below) materials giving the background and history of GOP minority voter intimidation, with emphasis on past activity in your state or district.
• Devise separate press strategies for mainstream and specialty press:
i. Mainstream press: Consider a press conference
— Featuring a prominent mainstream spokesperson (priest, civic leader, business leader)
— Including a group of established community leaders behind that spokesperson, but with only one person giving a statement
— Emphasizing a message of outrage, but designed to appeal to the broader community: "We thought this community was better than that", "We thought those days were behind us", "Nothing is more despicable than trying to deprive any American of the precious right to vote, the foundation of our democracy for which so many have sacrificed."
— Impugning the source of divisiveness – the GOP, the opposing candidate, whoever can credibly be said to be behind it
— Include call to action
ii. Specialty press
— Use minority intimidation as an organizing tool: in a press conference and/or press materials, community leadership should call on the community to rise up against the efforts to disenfranchise them by turning out in record numbers and challenging any effort at intimidation
— Link this fight to the historical fights to enfranchise minorities, going back to the civil rights struggle.
2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).
• Issue a press release
i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state
ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting
• Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points
• Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics
• Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls
3. Train field staff, precinct workers, and your own poll watchers thoroughly in the rules they need to know for election day.
4. Plan and completely prepare for possible legal action well in advance of election day
5. Have Secretary of State record public service announcements about election day – when polls are open, who is eligible, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us note: section 2 does not bring up accusing Republicans of voter intimidation if none has taken place.
It does bring up that the fact that it has happened previously, and is entirely possible again.
there is no call for false accusations and unsubstantiated claims. Drudge presents it as though it did.
In other words, there is freedom of speech, just not religious speech.
I could just as easily use the example that I can't use the same public address system at a football game to talk about the upcoming KKK rally.
Or should we allow anybody who wants to use hate speech as well whenever they want?
There is freedom of speech until you infringe upon the free speech of somebody else.
Did you know that until 1954, churches were allowed to talk about political candidates, and somehow, our democracy survived?
Yes, and up until about the same point of time, we didn't have the words "under god" in the Pledge of Allegience either. We didn't destroy ourselves in those first 150 years...
The text that follows "launch a pre-emptive strike" in that full document clearly states that the content of the pre-emptive strike should be to issue a press release documenting past offenses, quotes denouncing offenses, watch for offenses, educate people as to what consitutes offenses, be prepared to respond to offenses and educate people of their rights.
Would you object to a memo suggesting that if no woman is currently being raped people should concentrate their efforts on denouncing rape, watching out for rape, educating people as to what consitutes rape, being prepared to prosecute rapists and educating people of their rights to not be raped?
Ogf course DOn, those godless heathens the democrats are too ignorant and evil and must be shown the one true way of the religious republicans...
Jim and others - I certainly hope you're not really under the impression that a church isn't free to be as involved in the political process as they like, because they are. Reverend Joe Smith can stand at the pulpit and rail against candidate X and for candidate Y all day long.
Or they can take donations which are tax deductable for the donor.
What they can't do it both. And if you think that's unfair, well, take it up with MoveOn.org. "Contributions to MoveOn.org are not tax deductible because they will be used to influence legislation." or the Christian Coalition. "Christian Coalition of America is organized and operates as a 501(c)(4) organization, gifts to which are not deductible for Federal income tax purposes."
And in reality, they can be involved in the political process. They just have to be very very careful about how they collect and use money to do it. You can read about the particulars at http://www.exempttaxlaw.com/CM/Articles/Articles54.asp if you like but the bottom line is they have to organize a separate arm to do it and can't spend the collection plate money.
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s
This does not refer to Nevada. It is much more generic, talking about whatever polling the place the person is working at. In other words, it says to cry "wolf" just because you feel like it. It basically say, "Cry 'foul' first and then look to see if someone actually did something wrong, since we all know Republicans are evil and they are going to anyways."
Uh, Jim...yes, it does. I mean, is it REALLY crying wolf if something actually DID do something scummy a month before? Particularly if it's something like issuing press releases and warnings? That's sort of saying that community groups shouldn't be issuing warnings for a potential child molestor if someone tried to snatch a kid a city or two over....
One more example: It is absurd for the government to say a church cannot endorse a candidate.b>
I’m afraid I have to side with George Carlin on this one when he said, “If the churches want to talk about politics, let them pay their admission price like everyone else.”
I believe a politician should keep his personal beliefs and his political beliefs separate. Personally, abortion would never be on my list of options if I got someone pregnant and I would do my best to talk the woman out of it if it were my baby involved, but that’s as far as I carry that belief. What everyone else does in that same situation is none of my business.
On another note, if schools have a moment of silence where the students have the choice to pray or not, I’d have no problem with it. However, if they have a vocal prayer, they need to make sure that every religion represented at the school gets equal time. (Which is ludicrous.) If you want your child to learn religion along side of the 3 Rs, send them to Catholic school.
Marc
"Another poster mentioned having to pay $30 000 out his own pocket to have a baby, had that been the case I would not have had a child because we could not have afforded a bill like that."
That was me and actually if you check it was 3000.00 not 30,000, thank God! Curerently we still owe the Doctor and hospital where the baby was born (Willow Creek in Johnson Arkansas)780.00.
We have been paying them between 70 and 100 a month, having worked out a payment plan in April agreeing to pay 50 a month. The 50 a month was thier terms. Last month in spite of exceeding thier terms and having paid close to 1000.00 to them already since May, which has left me for the remainder of this year so far scraping to get by, My wife was to have her gynecological exam by the same Doctor. The billing departmentcalled us 26 hours before the appt and cancelled it saying that even though we were paying, and knowing that we has finally surpassed the cap on our yearly insurance we would not be allowed to have another appountment until we got our balance down below 200.00. For referance our insurance currently works like this. For the first 2000 or so of medical expenses you pay a 20% co-pay. After that they stop paying for about 3000.00, then you hit your cap and they start paying again. at this point they pay about 98% of the medical. then at some point much higher and I'm not sure where they stop paying again. Now out of the 3000.00 around 1800.00 was the ob/gyn, 60% or so of the rest went to our regular doctor who i still owe 170.00 to, and the remainder to the aesthesiologist, whom at this point I have paid in full, as back in May it was the smallest of the bills. Examine that for a moment in our vaunted health care system, which people hold up as so much better than Canadas, my wife has been refused care because we oue money, and were A. paying more than they asked for, B. have insurance that would pretty much cover the entire visit. I'll have to ask Pad to forgive this outburst, but that is completely F***ed up!! We are not having to look for a new doctor, and I'll be damned if I'll pay those bastards more than the 50 a month we agreed upon. Why should I bust my ass to pay the bill and end up feeling like I'm scraping before our paycvhecks every other week just so I can be treated like human trash?
sorry that should read
We are now having to look for a new doctor,
Bill wrote:
The post I was responding to seemed to imply--and this may have been a misreading on my part--that healthcare (which I took to include drug companies and the work they do) should be nonprofit. My thought was that this would cripple the drug industry, which has benefited us all so greatly (Life expectancy of 85+ hasn't happened because of our healthier diets, that's for sure).
(in the interest of full disclosure, I've snipped the last two paragraphs of his post- which both made excellent points that I don't plan on disputing- it's just a space concern)
Bill, I'd have to agree that capitalism works, with the codicil that it works only as well as or marginally better than any other system we (as a species) have tried so far. Call me loony if you want, but I'd like to think that in a perfect world, profit would not be the sole (or even overriding) motive for research into lifesaving medicines and surgical procedures, but rather simply the drive to save lives and improve quality of life for our fellow humans. I'll concede that certainly it isn't the case *now*, but what's the harm in wishing it were so and working towards that goal legislatively, socially and politically? This may be putting words in someone else's mouth, but I think the idea that Marc was trying to get across is that health care *shouldn't* be profit driven, it ought to be affordable by all.
I'll take you Ayn Rand fantasy and raise you one loony-left pipe dream. ;)
Take care!
To Jeff Coney:
Sorry I got the amount you posted wrong. (it was the inevitable "where the heck are my glasses?" moment.)
To even have a detailed, itemised list of how much each aspect your/your wife's health care cost and what is owed to who (whom? Arrgh!) is incomprehensible to me. With your particular situation I would be furious!
The American health care industry is actually quite impressive and arguably the most advanced in the world as long as one has financial means to afford the best service/advice/procedures.
The trick is to keep average middle-class America from realising they can not have access to the best health care because they will not be able to afford it. Kudos to the Republicans for doing their job so well. :)
Even more so then being billed for a basic human right, to me, the idea that wealthier people can and will get better treatment then lower income people seems so wrong that it is almost evil.
This must be an issue I am passionate about if it can prompt me, a proud Atheist, to quote or paraphrase the bible, but isn't there a passage in there about a Camel being able to pass through the eye of a needle before a rich man could enter heaven? Does anyone see maybe, the sentiment behind such a thought?
Personal wealth or lack thereof, should not affect how much effort and resources are applied to preserving/treating/improving human life.
Again, I go back to my point about taxes being used to pay for essential services that the individual could not afford on his or her own, is how they are supposed be used.
The idea that taxes will pay to repave the street you live on every year so that the actual residents of said street aren't burdened with the cost, is OK, but taxes being used to provide you with basic personal healthcare is wrong, resulting in inferior socialised medicine that will cost you your freedom to choose your own doctor is utterly preposterous.
I believe a politician should keep his personal beliefs and his political beliefs separate.
That statement makes no sense. I can understand saying you cannot force someone to agree with your belief on a particular issue, but what point is there in having a belief if it does not guide how you live and make decisions? And if it does guide you, it sure better have an impact on your political beliefs.
Jim in Iowa
It’s like Kerry said; abortion is against his personal beliefs. However, he wouldn’t try to force his personal religious beliefs on another person by trying to take away a woman’s constitutional right to choose. His belief guides him and how he lives his life, but he puts that belief aside when deciding what’s best for everyone else.
Everyone is for having a politician’s religious beliefs dictate how they vote on an issue, as long as those beliefs are shared. How well do you think it would go over with those Christians who like to hunt if a pacifist Christian politician decided to campaign against the 2nd amendment?
A Canuck Redux says:
"Bill, I'd have to agree that capitalism works, with the codicil that it works only as well as or marginally better than any other system we (as a species) have tried so far. Call me loony if you want, but I'd like to think that in a perfect world, profit would not be the sole (or even overriding) motive for research into lifesaving medicines and surgical procedures, but rather simply the drive to save lives and improve quality of life for our fellow humans. I'll concede that certainly it isn't the case *now*, but what's the harm in wishing it were so and working towards that goal legislatively, socially and politically? This may be putting words in someone else's mouth, but I think the idea that Marc was trying to get across is that health care *shouldn't* be profit driven, it ought to be affordable by all."
"I'll take you Ayn Rand fantasy and raise you one loony-left pipe dream. ;)"
"Take care!"
Hey, I like your world better than Ayns any day! However...my fear is that any attempt to legislate something like this will come crashing against the wall of reality, resulting in a situation that is much much worse than what we currently have. One must admire idealism but that doesn't mean you have to let your bus driver go over a cliff just because he thinks the bus can fly.
Belive me, I have sympathy for people who get bills that have $10 a cotten ball and crap like that. I had an unfortunate cat incident a few years back whereupon my cat scratched my foot, resulting in an antibiotic resistant bacterial infection that tore up my leg with truly terrifying speed. One week in the hospital being pumped full of drugs that require federal approval to use later and I managed to survive with both legs intact. It took a long time to pay off the amount not covered by insurance. Then again, how much can I complain about being able to pay $100 a month or so for a few years when I'm still alive AND have two legs, allowing me to easily kick my cat in the ass every day without falling over? God bless America!
Ben from Canada again, with some comments on the medical discussion:
Canadian doctors are still, continuously, in the very high end of the pay bracket. In other words, they're making money hand-over-fist. Contrary to what the U.S. media is feeding you folks, we have a lot of research going on here.
For example, the first actual out-and-out cure for a variety of cancer was discovered at McMaster University, in my hometown of Hamilton, Ontario.
The concept of government-funded medicine does not preclude the idea of rewarding strong producers for what they produce. Indeed, a friend of mine in the pharmaceutical field -prefers- working in Canada to the U.S., because there's a lot less pressure to produce the next saleable drug, and a lot more pressure to produce drugs that actually work...and can then be sold all over the globe.
I saw a TV special a few years back, where they compared U.S. media stories about Canadian healthcare to the truth. The U.S. interviewed Canadians who talked about the fabulous medical care they'd received in the U.S. and couldn't get at home.
The U.S. media portrayed this as a failing in our medical system. When CBC interviewed the same people, the responses were along the lines of, "Well, the place in the U.S. was the only place that had the organ I needed," or "They had pioneered a medical treatment that wasn't available anywhere else." The CBC then went on to note foreigners who'd come to Canada for medical treatment only we could provide, and Canadians who'd gone to other countries than the U.S. for specialized treatment.
It all gets twisted, you see, as part of the political agenda to keep pharmaceuticals rich. I mean, c'mon, folks...they're the most profitable business in the U.S. You don't think they've got their fingers in the media, in politics, and all over the map, protecting their bottom line?
Bill mulligan wrote:
"Then again, how much can I complain about being able to pay $100 a month or so for a few years when I'm still alive AND have two legs, allowing me to easily kick my cat in the ass every day without falling over? God bless America!"
You can complain when you realise that in other countries, not just Canada, you would have been treated using the same drugs, had just as good of a recovery and over all health care experience, and you would not have to pay $100 a month or more for a few years.
How many is a few years? 3? 3.5? 4-6?
@ 3 years and assuming $100/ month (not the "or so" which I take to mean more then $100) that's $3600 you have to pay.
What if you or your loved ones get sick/injured during this period? Then how much more will the debt rise?
What if you didn't have insurance? What if you were low income and could not afford $100/ month?
Staring to see any reasons to complain yet?
"Hey, I like your world better than Ayns any day! However...my fear is that any attempt to legislate something like this will come crashing against the wall of reality, resulting in a situation that is much much worse than what we currently have. One must admire idealism but that doesn't mean you have to let your bus driver go over a cliff just because he thinks the bus can fly."
Given the actual "wall of " REALITY that other countries make Government paid-for health care work (not perfectly and not without serious effort admittedly), and that fear of failure is not a good reason to avoid trying,
how does free health care for every American citizen regardless of their annual income result in having the bus driver going over a cliff because he thinks the bus can fly?
A more accurate analogy would be: the bus driver sees that other buses have been made capable of flight and he then gets his bus modified so it too will be able to achieve flight.
Before I make any more points: this not any kind of a direct attack against you and I am glad you had a full recovery and can laugh about it while keeping your cat. Me, I may have had the good humour to view it with later on but that cat would be de-clawed.
Ok, now a point or two more:
I have family in the US, so I have some knowledge of their experience using that model of health care, and there are some potential advantages to it, but what makes you feel that other health care models (maybe Canada's as I'm most familiar with it) are "much, much worse" ?
I've heard the Rhetoric about not being able to choose your own doctor and that seems to be a uniquely American idea.
Up here I can see my family doctor that I've chosen, or go into a clinic if it's going to be quicker and be seen by any of the physicians there. I can go to any clinic I want, anywhere is this country.
My employment provides me with drug and dental benefits, and thanks to the combination health care for myself and my wife and kids will not place me in debt.
How is this much much worse?
I'm a glass half full kind of guy--being alive, as opposed to dead, like my great grandfather, who died from an infection after cutting his toenails too closely. $100 bucks a month is getting off easy, I probably pay that much for cable and my highspeed internet connection.
Sure, lots of places pay less than we do. You can get thousands of dollars worth of AIDS drugs in some African countries, but that's because the drug companies make enough here and other places to make up for the loss. If they could not charge high prices elsewhere I guarantee they would not be developing any AIDS drugs--they aren't stupid.
Seems to me the logical way to sort this all out would be for some state to go to a Canada style system--raise taxes but pay the health care for all state members. If it works other states would follow. My suspicion is that nationalized health care is one of those things that probably has to be forced on people to have it be viable--not that this automatically makes it a bad idea.
"Only a tiny minority of people want to see Canada go over to the US system of private care, perhaps one-thirtieth of the population, and these are the same republican hardliners who wanted to join the US in 1867."
Wow. They must be getting really long in the tooth!
Phinn
"The CBC then went on to note foreigners who'd come to Canada for medical treatment only we could provide, and Canadians who'd gone to other countries than the U.S. for specialized treatment."
There's something that probably doesn't get placed on the brochures: "It's not just the USA--There are LOTS of other countries we need to go to for the care we want!"
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001878.html
Kerry Sorry for Remark About Cheney's Lesbian Child
(2004-10-14) -- John Forbes Kerry, father of two heterosexual daughters, today apologized for referring to the sexual preference of Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter during last night's final presidential debate.
"There's nothing wrong with being one of God's homosexual children," said Mr. Kerry, an openly-heterosexual veteran of foreign war who is also a U.S. Senator, "And far be it from me to pry into the private life of Mr. Cheney's lesbian child, who is gay and a homosexual. People can't choose whom they will love, and so I should not have mentioned that his daughter is a lesbian person, and not a heterosexual, but in fact a gay homosexual woman who is a lesbian with the last name Cheney."
Mr. Kerry said he would send a card to the vice president's daughter to fully express his regrets.
"I'm sure Hallmark has a nice collection of cards that say things like, 'I'm sorry I talked about your sexual preferences on national TV'," said Mr. Kerry. "But I really wasn't trying to remind conservatives that the vice president has a daughter who is not heterosexual, but rather a homosexual lesbian gay woman named Cheney."
Mr. Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, will reportedly issue an apology tomorrow for similar remarks he made during his debate with Mr. Cheney.
Something else to chime in with about health care. The current U.S. system influences what medical treatments you will or won't choose because of money issues. I'll give a personal example (and, having not done a study, this may be an isolated thing). My wife and I had our first child a year ago, and her insurance at the time paid 100% of all costs relating to maternity and birth. She got laid off and found a new job that offers crappier benefits, and only covers about 80% of all costs relating to maternity and birth. So, what happens if she needs a c-section (again)? What happens if the doctor looks at how things are going and recommends a c-section or some other procedure, but knowing we can't afford it, my wife turns it down, despite the risks to her or the baby? Basically it comes down to we can't afford to have another child right now, and we're really hoping one of us (most likely her, since I'm just a bum of an artist and a stay at home dad) gets a job with better health benefits.
In general, I think the whole system needs to somehow be less money driven and more focused on keeping people healthy (and not unneccesarly pumped full of meds.). How that would happen successfully, I have no clue.
Monkeys.
Hm. I have an honest question here. What is Kerry apologizing for in mentioning Mary Cheney in the debate? From what I can tell (which may not be much), there wasn't very much that was inflammatory here. Irrelevant, perhaps, but not inflammatory...
Irrelevant, perhaps, but not inflammatory...
Agreed. And irrelevant isn't something to apologize for either. Otherwise Bush would be apologizing after every question he's asked and feels the need to talk about something else instead.
Toby,
You call a benefit that pays you 80% of a procedure crappy? This is a perfect example of the Entitlement Mentality.
You should come to my hometown, where in the past year, the only two doctors left who delivered babies had to stop because the insurabce companies refused to insure them anymore. One left the state (I am in Pennsylvania) and the other has had to stop delivering babies. The one who is still here is bummed he has had to stop delivering babies, and he does blame lawsuits. he says it is easy to blame the insurance companies, but they need to be financially solvent. So they either need to charge higher rates or leave the states where it is no longer wise for them to stay. If they do charde higher rates, that gets passed along to the doctors. The doctor I am speaking of says even if, say, his insurance rates went up 5%, he can't raise his fees to offset his increased costs, due to caps the government puts in place bacause of Medicare and things like that to CONTROL COSTS. And he can't charge higher rates to people not on Medicare and other government programs because then that would be discriminatory.
So, in this one small instance alone, the attempt to control costs has squeezed doctors and hurt access to care. They cannot raise rates to offset expenses, they cannot practice without a license and they cannot keep their license if they are not insured. I shudder to think about a health care system totally run by the government
Oh, and before people feel the government running things would be more efficient than the insurance companies and these "Big, Bad" players in the health care system, consider this: Remember when Hillary took the opportunity of her husband's emergency bypass to make a political point that she wished "everyone would have the same care" as they did?
Well, this statement was dissected by publications as diverse as the Post and New York Times. The finding:
A.) President Clinton had to wait about a half a day for an appointment with a cardiologist and only about two for surgery
B.) Under a Hillary-style health care system, he would have had to wait about two weeks for an APPOINTMENT, and 24 days after that for surgery. In other words, he would be dead.
of course, being a former president will always aford him the best care possible. t's the rest of us who would have to wait, suffer and die unnecessarily if we change our system in the name of some insane definition of "fairness".
Just my random thoughts on healthcare and insurance.
One, insurance costs in general are rising. Lots of different reasons, including those black holes in the insurance companies where money goes in and is never seen again...unless you look in the wallets of the CEOs and other adminstrators. Insurance companies are for profit, just like a bunch of other companies, and one way to improve profit is to reduce coverage while raising premiums. Its simple greed economics, and the "customers" of the company, those paying the premiums, are pretty powerless to stop it. Hence, the need for governmental oversight...short of control, maybe some form of regulation. Banks are a similar racket...I mean, how much sense does it make to give your money to an insitution (bank or insurance company) for safe keeping, until you need it later, and then, when you DO need it, they don't give it all back, or charge you up the wazoo for it? Shouldn't THEY be paying YOU for all the interest and investment power your money has given them? Think about it...
And now about "free" healthcare. There won't be such a thing until we hit ST:TNG's currency-less Federation, and even there, we know that gold-pressed latinum has a high value. Healthcare costs have to be borne by someone. There's a doctor and a tech and a nurse and a hospital and supplies, and those little hospital meals with the green JELL-O, and all that stuff and service costs someone something. What most people call "free" healthcare really means healthcare paid for by money collected by taxes. It's maybe the biggest pool of insurance money. Your taxes would become your premium. Overall costs might be individually low, depending on how successful you could keep the healthcare funds out of the general revenue fund, and you'd have to work hard to keep those beaurocratic black holes from gobbling up the fund, but in theory, you could run a pretty efficient helthcare system on it.
I've seen both sides of the medical liability lawsuit. I've read the stories about doctors closing up shop because they can't get liabilty insurance. Don't know how complete those stories are. On the other hand, no study completed to date has supported medical liability costs as a factor of rising healthcare costs.
People keep saying the government needs to pass a law limiting the liabilty of medical malpratice. Maybe instead people need to stop thinking the doctor is responsible when their baby is born with a genetic birth defect. Or has brown eyes instead of blue. Or turned out to be a violent little creep, because, y'know, it was the doctors' fault that the parent's didn't do their job as parents and work to instill values like integrity and respect in their kid.
I jest, of course, but if you look hard and long enough, you'll probably find some real-world lawsuit that matches my jest. Maybe instead of laws that arbitrarily limit all malpractice suits, including the very legitimate "My doctor dropped my baby on his head during the procedure, and now he has brain damage" case, and instead enact laws that allow doctors to counter-sue frivolous malpractice claims? Of heck, not even wait for a countersuit, just place within the judges discretion the ability to law a contempt fine on the plaintiff and lawyer who sues for $10,000,000 because "we were supposed to have a boy, and the doctor messed it up and now we have a girl."
Kerry's reference to Cheney's daughter had the appearance of being an attempt to use a child against her parents (at best) or an attempt to carve off a few Bush votes by appealing to what he sees as the homophobia of the "Reagan democrats (at worst).
It also just seemed sleazy. Suppose, when Kerry talked about his Catholic faith Bush replied by talking about how he was SURE that Kerry had struggled long and hard to console his daughters during his DIVORCE and subsequent ANNULMENT and...would anybody think he was being sincere?
At any rate, it certainly has played poorly. I talked to one woman today, a Kerry supporter, who was furious, a lot angrier about it than I was (But that's probably because my expectations for the guy aren't high to begin with). Polls show Bush seeming to gain, despite the media saying he lost all 3 debates. But who knows? I was ready to say the race was turning solidly for Kerry a few days ago, now I'm not at all sure.
What I think would go a longer way towards stemming frivolous lawsuits than a cap on damages is adopting the "loser pays" rule that most other countries already have. A lot of lawsuits today are settled not because the defendent actually did anything wrong but because it's cheaper than paying lawyer fees for months even years to fight it out.
If a doctor or hospital knew that they could make the defendent pay their lawyer fees if they prevailed at trial, they'd be more willing to fight it. And, fewer people would see slipping on a mall food court as winning the lottery if they knew that if they lost, they'd be on the hook for paying not only their legal costs but also those of the mall's owners. Finally, I think many lawyers would be hesitant file frivolous claims if they knew the best they were likely to receive would be their billable hours instead of half of a multi-million dollar settlement check.
Kerry's reference to Cheney's daughter had the appearance of being an attempt to use a child against her parents (at best) or an attempt to carve off a few Bush votes by appealing to what he sees as the homophobia of the "Reagan democrats (at worst).
Bear with me on this one. I'm still not seeing it. When there's a position that quite clearly touches on the individual involved, that seems to be quite fair game to me. Or was it much more out of the blue than I thought it was?
Bill Mulligan: "There's something that probably doesn't get placed on the brochures: "It's not just the USA--There are LOTS of other countries we need to go to for the care we want!"
Me: Actually the point was that for certain treatments people have to go where they are available, including Americans. Or did you not realise how many Americans seek Treatment abroad?
Jerome Maida :
"You should come to my hometown, where in the past year, the only two doctors left who delivered babies had to stop because the insurance companies refused to insure them anymore."
"I shudder to think about a health care system totally run by the government"
Me: The town I grew up in has a population of 6000. We had then and have now more then 2 doctors that deliver babies. We have a well equipped hospital, a not so impressive clinic, and more then enough doctors to handle a population that size.
Jerome Maida :
"Under a Hillary-style health care system, he would have had to wait about two weeks for an APPOINTMENT, and 24 days after that for surgery. In other words, he would be dead.
of course, being a former president will always afford him the best care possible. it's the rest of us who would have to wait, suffer and die unnecessarily if we change our system in the name of some insane definition of "fairness".
Me: Wow, have you ever been fed false facts to convince you that paying for your health care out of your own pocket is much better for you.
Under our system, emergency cases such as heart attacks and strokes of course get priority treatment. People suffering from the flu are the ones that wait in emergency rooms while the critical cases are treated first.
The people having a heart attack don't die because they are waiting 2 weeks for emergency treatment.
Under your current system you would have to wait longer then Bill Clinton did and you would get inferior treatment because Bill Clinton has more money then you do.
Now yes our system is not perfect, an example is a nurse that I was chatting with while she took my blood and in her case she has a torn meniscus (sp?) and has to wait 8 months to have surgery on it.
That is very unfortunate, but at the same time this not a life-threatening situation and because the provincial conservative party gutted the province's health care system to deliver an election promise of a 40% reduction in income tax.
Why people do not realize that huge tax cuts also mean huge drops in essential services I still don't understand.
An "insane definition of fairness"? What's insane about health care being a basic human right of all people? What's insane about the average person being able to receive equal quality healthcare as compared to a wealthier person?
Does having more money somehow make a person's life more worth saving?
America is one of the richest, if not richest countries in the world, yet it doesn't provide health care for all of its citizens. Doesn't that seem wrong?
"Hm. I have an honest question here. What is Kerry apologizing for in mentioning Mary Cheney in the debate? From what I can tell (which may not be much), there wasn't very much that was inflammatory here. Irrelevant, perhaps, but not inflammatory..."
I think it's fairly obvious that the post regarding the "apology" is a gag. I mean, come on, look at the wording attributed to Kerry. It's a joke.
As for the reality, non-joke aspect of Kerry's comments, I think the one who should be ashamed of himself is Cheney. Not only was it abundantly clear in Kerry's initial comment--which was in direct response to a question about homosexuality being a choice--that he wasn't slamming anybody, but also Cheney has made repeated public references to his daughter's sexuality, and Edwards himself made a comment about how Cheney is accepting of her preferences and Cheney simply smiled and said he appreciated it. But Kerry says basically the same thing Edwards and Cheney did, and suddenly Cheney's flipping out. A pathetic and manipulative ploy to cast Kerry in a bad light.
The one who did really put her foot in her mouth was Edwards' wife. Speculating that Cheney's family might actually be ashamed because they're overreacting? How about saying "I think they're overreacting" and leaving it at that. Then again, no one is voting for Edward's wife. Still, that was just a flat out blunder.
PAD
He used Mary Cheney as a prop.
That is why it was sleazy.
I think I'm going to stop watching the news until this election is over. I'm tired of the lies and distortions from both parties. The straw that broke the camel's back is from Kerry this time -- a quote he gave to the Des Moines Register, published today. Here's an excerpt:
"With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft. Because if we go it alone, I don't know how you do it with the current overextension" of the military, Kerry said.
This is an outright fabrication, and amounts to nothing more than fear-mongering to grab a few more votes.
Man, am I fed up!!! Maybe I'll do a write-in vote for Alfred E. Neuman.
And now it is being reported that a seventeen member Army Reserve Platoon in Iraq is under arrest for refusing to go on a mission claiming their vehicles were unsafe.
I strongly suspect that if Clinton was still President and he was the one that invaded Iraq, the GOP would be attempting to impeach him again.
How well do you think it would go over with those Christians who like to hunt if a pacifist Christian politician decided to campaign against the 2nd amendment?
It is this kind of logic that puzzles me. I am not trying to be critical, I just honestly don't get it.
If someone believes the war in Iraq is wrong, but the majority believes it is right, should he vote for the war?
If someone, for religious reasons, believes the death penalty is wrong, but the majority of Americans believe it is right, should he leave his beliefs at home and vote for the death penalty?
Polls show that there is an overwhelming majority (between 70 and 75%) of the population do not agree with gay marriage. Why is it wrong to put a constitutional amendment in place (since if it was up for a vote, it would win by a landslide, at least today)?
My point is that it is absurd to say anyone, liberal or republican, should believe something, but not vote based on those beliefs. We do not live in a monarchy. We live in a representative republic. One wacko who thinks (fill in the blank) cannot establish policy.
The one exception is when it comes to executive orders. The President does have some power to have some influence. Bush has actually been fairly moderate in what he has done. It has been definitely conservative, but there is far more that he could have done.
Bottom line: I have no problem with an offical voting and acting on his beliefs, whether they are liberal or conservative. If they are out of touch, extreme, etc., they will generally be booted from office. While I support Bush, his policy in Iraq has in particular upset a large number of people. He did what he felt was right. If enough of you disagree, he will be sent walking in a few weeks.
My problem is not with politicians who vote their conscience according to their beliefs. My problem is with politicians who hide those beliefs so they can get into office, and those politicians who vote based on money rather than their beliefs. And an honest examination can find politicians like this in both parties.
Jim in Iowa
He used Mary Cheney as a prop.
Sorry, I just don't get that. It's an example, not a prop. It personalizes his argument with a named person, and it's a stronger argument because it doesn't come from his ticket, but from the other ticket.
Furthermore, the concept of "it being sleazy" makes sense to me only if you consider homosexuality shameful or something to be kept hidden or not to be spoken of. I'm not sure that any candidate should admit to that...
John Kerry could have easily used for his example either Wisconson Rep. Tammy Baldwin, or even Rep. Barney Frank, who's from a little place called Massachusetts if he was only looking for a gay person. His swipe at Cheney's daughter was exactly that, a swipe. Both democrats and republicans are upset about it.
Excuse me. Kerry did not "swipe" at Cheney's daughter. If you consider what Kerry did to be a "swipe", I suspect that you have a problem with homophobia. Mary Cheney had been "outed" for a while.
Example, extended version: A person is elected into the House of Representatives because he has proved himself on a local level in regards to school funding, lowering the crime rate and cutting taxes. Once in the House, someone introduces legislation to get rid of the 2nd amendment. He is a pacifist and believes deep down that gun cause more trouble than they solve and would like nothing more than to outlaw them. HOWEVER, he also knows the majority of his constituents are hunters and gun collectors. How does he vote?
A politician is supposed to represent the interest of those who elected him into office. In the above case, he should put aside his personal beliefs and vote how he thinks the majority of those he is representing would want him to vote.
So to answer your questions:
If someone believes the war in Iraq is wrong, but the majority believes it is right, should he vote for the war?
Yes.
If someone, for religious reasons, believes the death penalty is wrong, but the majority of Americans believe it is right, should he leave his beliefs at home and vote for the death penalty?
Yes.
Polls show that there is an overwhelming majority (between 70 and 75%) of the population do not agree with gay marriage. Why is it wrong to put a constitutional amendment in place (since if it was up for a vote, it would win by a landslide, at least today)?
I believe polls are to be to be ranked just under “It’s true because I read it on the Internet”, but if the above statement is true, then an amendment should be put into place. However, from just talking to people, I’ve found that 70-75% of people don’t really give a damn about gay marriage.
We do not live in a monarchy. We live in a representative republic.
Exactly. Politicians are not supposed to be put into office to spread the work of God or further their own agendas. They are supposed to work for the best interest of those they represent, even if the people’s interests conflict with the personal beliefs of the politician.
So I say again, they should separate their personal beliefs from their political ones.
[Bush] did what he felt was right. If enough of you disagree, he will be sent walking in a few weeks.
Unfortunately, I know some people who are planning to vote for Bush not because they agree with the war but because they want to give him a chance to clean up the mess he made. I don’t particularly like Kerry, but I’m voting for him because he’s the candidate I dislike the least.
Oh please. I've stated on this site before that I have absolutely no problem, and in fact see the day where gay unions will be legal and recognized. Kerry was using a planned talking point, and it's backfiring on him.
" We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to
Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.
"I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it."
This is a swipe?
I really, really don't think so.
Well, The woman I referred to earlier was gay herself and SHE thought Kerry was trying to use Mary Cheney against her father. It does seem a bit gratuitous to have her mentioned twice in the debates--why not mention loveable Homosexual New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy, a far better example of someone who is "living a sort of convention".
The terrible statement that Ms. Edwards later made that Peter refers to was probably just, as he says, a blunder, but it certainly reinforces the idea that this is a deliberate attack (I would disagree, in large part because it's hard to believe the Democrats would be so tone deaf as to think that this was a winning issue for them).
"If you consider what Kerry did to be a "swipe", I suspect that you have a problem with homophobia."
"Furthermore, the concept of "it being sleazy" makes sense to me only if you consider homosexuality shameful or something to be kept hidden or not to be spoken of."
Nope. Nice try. Advice to future presidential wannabes: Leave. The. Other. Guys' Kids. Out. Of. It.
But if Democrats want to keep this issue alive for the next 2 1/2 weeks, I say: Go For It! Soccer Moms LOVE this sort of thing!
Well, The woman I referred to earlier was gay herself and SHE thought Kerry was trying to use Mary Cheney against her father. It does seem a bit gratuitous to have her mentioned twice in the debates--why not mention loveable Homosexual New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy, a far better example of someone who is "living a sort of convention".
Actually, it wouldn't, because it's clear to me that the point was to show that this is something that crosses party lines; you want somebody tied to the Republican party, so that undecideds and wavering Republicans can't dismiss this as a Democratic only issues.
Nope. Nice try. Advice to future presidential wannabes: Leave. The. Other. Guys' Kids. Out. Of. It.
Sorry. I'm still not getting it. Republican ticket makes policy that touches very directly on a member of their own family. Why is that verboten? It's not like she's still in the closet, you know....
So Roger, are you saying it would have been better for the democrats if Mary Cheney was still in the closet?
The question to Kerry was about Gay Marriage. Please show me where Mary Cheney has ever publicly said anything about the subject. If she had said she's for gay marriage, then it would have been a point for the democrats to bring this up. However, she didn't and it looks like an attack.
A letter writer to the Andrew Sullivan blog makes an interesting point--for a lot of people, especially those of us over a certain age, it's just not considered proper to talk about other people's sex lives--gay, straight, battery operated, whatever. It's something town gossips and high school teens do. Yes, we all knew Mary Cheney was gay. I also know the other daughter is straight. If Kerry had referred to the straight daughter using birth control or some other heterosexual activity I still would go "ewww".
I'll make another example--if one of Kerry or Bush's kids had an abortion, I would consider it very low class to use the argument in a debate. Such distaste would not be because of any position of mine on abortion.
I would also have objected if Bush had somehow, maybe as part of an observation on health care, snuck in a reference to Kerry's prostate cancer. It would be low. Not because I have any objection to cancer. Well, it's not like I send them Christmas cards but, you know...
A CNN reporter said that the entire press room groaned when Kerry made the remark. Homophobes all?
During the last election, some Bush supporters spread a rumor that John McCaine had a "black baby". Were the people who were outraged by this bit of sleaze upset because they were racists? McCaine DOES have an adopted child with dark skin. Are you saying there's anything WRONG with that?
"A truth that's told with bad intent, beats all the lies you can invent." (So eat your beans with every meal.)
Could this be for Kerry what Amy Carter's nuclear proliferation advice was for Jimmy? Wait and see what Saturday Night Live does with this.
This is an outright fabrication, and amounts to nothing more than fear-mongering to grab a few more votes.
Unless I'm mistaken, even officials in this Administration have said we're stretched thin.
So, it's easy to see why they're all but pressing "retired" soldiers back into service, making threats against others to reenlist, etc.
If Bush gets another term keeps this up, we'll be at war with another country or two in the next four years, and we won't have a choice.
Fabrication? Hardly.
Fear-mongering? Not unless you think that voting for Kerry will get us another 9/11.
Kerry has said that he will NOT cut and run from Iraq.
Kerry is saying that our current commitments may well require a draft.
So....is Kerry trying to tell us there will be a draft when he gets elected?
Also, forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't a draft require congressional approval? If so, it ain't gonna happen. The last vote on the issue only got 2 votes for it (both Kerry supporters--Gulp!).
Not gonna happen.
So Roger, are you saying it would have been better for the democrats if Mary Cheney was still in the closet?
Um, no. It's just a publicly available fact; and, in fact, Mary Cheney is actually in the public eye, having been hired by Coors because of her orientation. I just don't find it particularly remarkable.
And, by the way, the question was not about gay marriage; it was "is homosexuality a choice." There is, I think, a valid point to be made about acceptance of homosexuality in there.
A letter writer to the Andrew Sullivan blog makes an interesting point--for a lot of people, especially those of us over a certain age, it's just not considered proper to talk about other people's sex lives--gay, straight, battery operated, whatever.
Again, I obviously don't get it; if there's a personal connection in the opponent's camp, and it doesn't violate privacy, then I think it's fair game.
I would also have objected if Bush had somehow, maybe as part of an observation on health care, snuck in a reference to Kerry's prostate cancer. It would be low.
THis is what I mean; I don't see this as a problem. If Bush could make a comment that Kerry's prostate cancer was, say, treated much better under the current system and would not be under Kerry's proposed system (and could prove it), then it's a valid point to make.
During the last election, some Bush supporters spread a rumor that John McCaine had a "black baby". Were the people who were outraged by this bit of sleaze upset because they were racists? McCaine DOES have an adopted child with dark skin. Are you saying there's anything WRONG with that?
Sorry, I don't get your point here. Is it sleazy and wrong to spread that rumor? Well, I think it was done to imply that it was out of wedlock...and to play on racist fears. I think both of those things are wrong...shouldn't we think that's wrong?
Sigh...my point was that OF COURSE it was wrong! NOT because the baby is black but because the INTENT of stating this was to do harm.
So it comes down to--was what Kerry said an innocent remark or was it intended to cause play on the supposed bigotries of others? Was the intent bad? I'm not sure.
Now obviously you think it wasn't. fair enough...but can you really not understand how some might see otherwise and how it would then be wrong?
One other point--if Bush had ended up running against gephardt and had brought up his daughter's homosexuality don't you think it is very much in the rhelm of possibility that he would also have gotten a lot of flack for it? Possibly from some of the same folks who are now defending kerry.
Of course, like all what ifs, we will never know.
The last vote on the issue only got 2 votes for it (both Kerry supporters--Gulp!).
Yes, it was such a serious vote that the person who put it up didn't even vote in favor of it.
That was a joke vote - a vote to show all the public that there won't be a draft, and to make sure those guys get their asses reelected for another 2 years.
If Kerry says we might be stuck with a draft, it's because Bush has put us in the situation.
Sigh...my point was that OF COURSE it was wrong! NOT because the baby is black but because the INTENT of stating this was to do harm.
Ah. Sorry. Teach me to surf the web while at the campaign kickoff for our school (Trey Gates is not a bad speaker, but his father is much better).
So it comes down to--was what Kerry said an innocent remark or was it intended to cause play on the supposed bigotries of others? Was the intent bad? I'm not sure.
Was it to score political points? Certainly. And as I said before, it works best if he cited someone related to a Republican. But was it hurtful to the Cheneys? I don't think so; in fact, it was quite sympathetic. Was it gently pointing out the cognitive dissonance between the public and private stances in the Republican ticket? Quite possibly, but it's something I think is fair game...
And with Bush's hypothetical statement toward Chrissy Gephardt, it would depend on what he said. If it's offensive when applied to a random public figure, then it's offensive when applied to her. If it isn't, I cant see how it would be with Chrissy Gephardt.
Catching up on a couple of matters...
I'm wanting to look up the DSM-IV criteria for "schizophrenia" not so much because of the prayer thing (I pray a fair bit myself, especially lately), but because Bush can somehow "feel" all these prayers being said. Unless he's holding a somewhat more important job than I'd thought, those prayers aren't being addressed to him. How's he supposed to be "feeling" what people are presumably doing in privacy?
As regards public prayers -
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret shall reward you." - Matthew 6:5-6
And about the health systems, I think Canada's got a great system. You get sick up there, you go to a doctor, the Canadian government pays for it. I think we should have the same thing here - I get sick, I go to the doctor, the Canadian government pays for it! :)
Jonathon:
>I'm wanting to look up the DSM-IV criteria for "schizophrenia" not so much because of the prayer thing (I pray a fair bit myself, especially lately), but because Bush can somehow "feel" all these prayers being said. Unless he's holding a somewhat more important job than I'd thought, those prayers aren't being addressed to him. How's he supposed to be "feeling" what people are presumably doing in privacy?
Is there an echo in here? ;)
Again, my point in saying this wasn't at all about the fact that he prays. It is with the implications of his words. His statement iplies "magical thinking", which is one of the criteria for schizophrenia. Do I honestly think he has this? Nope, but it is dangerous thinking nonetheless. He is supporting his own beliefs based on a perception that he feels others praying for him. Again I pose the question, what about the millions praying to their god to end the violence and his actions?
Roger,
It was sleazy becasue you just don't bring up the other guys Family. It seems to be an unwritten rule.
And just for the record, (because you have to do this when debating persons or subjects of the lefty persuasion....)
I am for gay marriage, homosexuality is not a choice you are born that way, yes yes yes...
and if I were American I would stil vote for W.
Bill Mulligan posed the question of whether a draft would require congressional approval.
Normally, I'd have said "yes" to that. Today, Under Bush, I'm not so sure. The Executive Office of today exercises many powers that to me appear to be beyond the power granted to it by the Constitution. Prime example being the abilty to declare war. This power is solely vested within the congress, yet after 9/11, Congress all but ceded that authority in the office of the President. Our Founders had a darn good reason to put the power to declare open war on another country not in the hands of the Commander in Chief, but in the hands of the elected body of congress, and that reason was so that we did not go to war based on one man's ideals, convictions, or declaration. Having just lived through a war, they fully understood the horror and terrible cost of any armed conflict, and ennacted a check agaisnt our new country entering a military conflict needlessly. The grant of power ceded to the Office of the President following 9/11 amounts to an illegal transfer of constitutional power.
All of which leads me to the conclusion that there's no telling what other powers this President may have, or may THINK he has, to exercise. He's issued, or had issued, a gag order to employees of the US EPA, preventing them from commenting or speaking to the press regarding the performance of the EPA during his tenure. He's fostered an environment within the government (and I know, I'm a federal employee myself) where to question, challenge, or criticize his actions results in discrimination or outright job loss.
So I wouldn't put anything past him as beyond his ability to attempt to do. If he feels that, if a draft is "necessary to ensure the safety and security of this country," he'll use his post 9/11 authority granted to him by congress to institute a mandatory draft. He has the legal precedent behind him already, and he's formeted an atmosphere of fear and apprehension within his own government, reducing the chances that his decision would be challenged before it was issued.
Really, all he's missing is the black armor and the breathing resiprator. Otherwise, he's showing all the signs of a Sith Lord.
Makes sense KingBobb, as Cheney seems to be Palpatine behind the scenes pulling his strings...
So...
Edwards is Luke Skywalker? And Kerry is Han Solo? Yikes, does that make Bush...Edwards...Father?
Noooooooooooooo!
Craig wrote:
"Unless I'm mistaken, even officials in this Administration have said we're stretched thin. So, it's easy to see why they're all but pressing "retired" soldiers back into service, making threats against others to reenlist, etc."
From my point of view, either Kerry knows less about the military than I do, or he is just saying this stuff to be a fear-monger and grab votes.
The "stop-loss" program is nothing new, and was utilized a number of times during the 20 years I was in the military -- most notably (but NOT most recently) during Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
The recent call-up of inactive reservists (which is only a tiny, tiny percentage of the total military force) is only unusual if you look at it from a recent historical point of view. I know for sure it was done in large numbers during the Korean War (and even afterwards in the 1950s), but I don't have data regarding its use at other times.
As far as extending someone's enlistment involuntarily so they can finish out a deployment or assignment, in 1997, I had to involuntarily extend nearly four months to take an involuntary assignment to Korea. Every service person knows that the needs of the military comes first regarding mission requirements.
Also, why would you need a draft when the services are meeting most of their recruiting goals? Sure there are shortages in certain specialties, requiring cross-training and force shaping, but this is again a normal ops in the military.
For example, in the early 1980s, the Air Force had a hell of a time holding on to skilled electronics technicians. High-paying civilian electronics jobs were booming, and military people had not yet started reaping the pay increases of the Reagan years. Techs were getting out in droves -- many after just their first enlistment. When bonuses didn't work, the Air Force was forced to retrain people from other specialties that had overages, and they also began recruiting many more people into the shortage career fields to help offset the slack. But while all the new people were getting trained (with tech school and OJT, it may take two years to "build" a fairly experienced electronics technician), the units out in the field had to deal with a shortage of experienced people in certain areas -- just like the Army is doing now. And to adjust to these unexpected shortages takes TIME.
Many people may not know it, but right now the Air Force has a SURPLUS of 20,000 people it will have to cull down in the next few years. The Army has thus implemented a "from blue to green" program to tap into this new pool of experienced military people.
During my time in the military, personnel people had to regularly deal with shortages of personnel and excesses of personnel. It goes with the territory.
All this is why I think Kerry is politicizing and mischaracterizing the military's current personnel situation, and why I find his alarmist negativity a huge turn-off.
Fred, I'd posted that because there seemed to be a fair number of people who thought you were referring to prayer as a schizophrenic symptom - which it can be, but only if you believe that your prayers control God's actions, making you His superior...
Personally, I don't think Bush is exhibiting schizoprenic symptoms per se, although sometimes I wonder if he's not just a touch hebephrenic. Ashcroft, on the other hand, seems to be showing many of the signs of paranoid schizophrenia, with a comorbid sexual obsession. (Cheney's just a garden-variety megalomaniac - not uncommon in politics, as far as I can tell...)
Roger, It was sleazy becasue you just don't bring up the other guys Family. It seems to be an unwritten rule.
How about the other campaign's director of vice-presidential operations? Okay to talk about them? I don't think it was the best move for Kerry to bring it up but as far as it being fair game I think the talking heads are off base.
Mary Cheney is a member of the Vice President's immediate family and the administration is pursuing a constitutional change that would prevent her from marrying her partner of eight years if she so desired. Further, they are doing it in conflict with their party's common stance of pro-States rights. I don't understand how anyone can think that's not a valid character issue to talk about.
MC is a person in the public eye and was in the news and commentaries long before Kerry mentioned her. You can use Google's news search and limit to articles from September and find a whole slew. http://news.google.com/news?svnum=10&as_scoring=r&hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=Mary+Cheney&btnG=Search+News&as_drrb=b&as_minm=9&as_mind=1&as_maxm=9&as_maxd=31
Craig,
The "person who brought up" a draft and then didn't vote for it was Charlie Rangel, a harlem Democrat, and an unabashed liberal.
Notwithstanding the vote against his own bill clearly shows he did not take the legislation seriously this time around and that it was done largely to get the media and politicians scaring people about the possibility of bringing a draft back.
The funny thing is, and I know your hatred of Bush and the republicans in general is so maniacal at this point that you will never believe it, but it is members of Congress that are extreme liberals and/or members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who feel that a draft is the only "just" way to replenish our armed forces and stop the "disproportionate" numbers of the poor and minorities in the ranks as currently constituted (when, in fact, the opposite is true).
The fact is that it is extremely unlikely - as close as you can get to guaranteed - that there will not be a reinstatement of the draft. I mean, really, if the administration you hate so much really wanted to, don't you think they would have done so, say, a week or two right after 9/11 (about the only time it may have been politically possible to do so)?
The armed forces don't want it. They would rather have people who want to be there and that they are able to train.Bush doesn't want it. Cheney doesn't want it. Rumsfeld doesn't want it. And, right now, it would never pass.
But continue to think the worst of this Administration, no matter how illogical the argument or how removed from reality it is and continue to support trying to scare the American people with false allegations.
You should be very proud.
You should be very proud.
Oh bull shit.
It's your man, Cheney, who said that electing Kerry will lead to another 9/11.
It's amazing that Cheney hasn't given himself another heart attack with the fear tactics he employs.
"People need to watch what they say." That's a pretty accurate paraphase that, no surprise, came from a Republican spokesman post-9/11.
And I need to be proud?
Illogic and lack of reality don't compare to ignorance and stupidity, of which this Administration has shown plenty.
It was sleazy becasue you just don't bring up the other guys Family. It seems to be an unwritten rule.
Well, that's the part I simply don't understand. I MIGHT understand when you're in attack mode, but this is pretty clearly not an attack. You certainly bring up the family if there's policy involved that appears to benefit family members througn nepotism...but are folks saying that you can never mention family members?
I don't know if this is the reasoning behind Kerry's claims that Bush's strategy will require a new draft. Here's my thought as to why:
Kerry is talking about re-building a treu coalition, which would at some point increase the number of non-American troops based in Iraq. Bush plans to continue to ignore the rest of the world, and use mainly American troops. Oh, and Polish troops. Um, well, at least for a few more months, anyway.
So, if things stay as they are today, neiter candidate is likely to require a draft to continue operations in Iraq. While one poster suggested that recruiting goals are being met, I've read in a few places that the only reason those goals are being met is because the goals have been lowered. We're cutting down on the size of our military in all facets (BRAC, the Stryker, I've even seen a plan of the Navy's to retire it's current fleet of destroyers and replace them with a fleet/crew 1/3 our current size).
But that's if things stay the same, where we lose 1-5 US soldiers a day in service in Iraq. What happens if, God forbid, some insurgents do manage to attain and deploy a WMD, even a small one? Suddenly we're lost 100 or maybe 1000 troops, not in a single DAY, but in a single EVENT. At that rate, and American only or mostly-American force cannot be sustained by a volunteer force, and the pressure on the government to instate a draft will substantially increase.
Those same pressures will exist if Kerry is elected and successful in infusing non-American troops, but the casualty burden will be spread across the coalition.
And for those who would say "I'm sure Bush and his folks have accounted for that," consider this. Bush has stated on several occasions that one of the reasons why we're continuing to experience resistance in Iraq is because our initial attack was "too successful." He's stated that we "conquered" (his very word) Iraq so fast that many of the leaders loyal to Saddam were able to slink away into the night, only to regroup and lead a guerilla resistance against us. In fact, recent evidence indicates that this was the Iraqi plan all along, knowing that they could never withstand using "conventional" military tactics.
So, what Bush is saying, is that because the Iraqi's didn't stand against us in a normal war, which by implication Bush is saying he expected them to do, we were unable to accomplish the goal of eliminating their command structure. He didn't consider that the Iraqi generals might actually be smart enough to know that they'd never win in a "fair fight."
Bush has been wrong about this from the start. Don't let anyone kid you about him being wrong about it in the future. Kerry may be overstating the likelihood of a draft under Bush, but it IS a very real possibilty.
"People need to watch what they say." That's a pretty accurate paraphase that, no surprise, came from a Republican spokesman post-9/11."
The statement in question, which is usually said to refer just to Bill Maher's comments on US troops being cowards, was also referring to a congressman who had made racial comments about Arabs.
Just an FYI for those who care.
as for the rest...Jerome seems to have made some good points, since they go unchallenged.
Jerome seems to have made some good points, since they go unchallenged.
Apparently the rest of us have made good points as well, since many of them go unchallenged.
You guys can say all you want that a draft is out of the realm of possibility. I'm sure Bush thought it was out of the realm of possibility that Saddam didn't have WMD either.
Will somebody PLEASE remove this dumbass from office?
Campaigning in an area heavily dependent on the military, Bush said, "We will not have an all-volunteer army" before correcting himself. "Let me restate that," he continued. "We will not have a draft ... . The best way to avoid a draft is to vote for me."
Been off for a while, and I'm back. So....
Healthcare: 2 observations:
#1. Peter, you might remember years ago when I was talking with you about Isaac's birth and we were comparing notes. I think it was just after Shana was born, (or am I getting confused about which of you kids?.....the years melt together). Anyways to referesh you and let everyone else know:
Isaac was 10 weeks early and weighed in at about 3 lbs. 2 oz., and had among other stuff going against him a blood-brain bleed, as well as Hyalin Membrane syndrome and lots of other stuff like that. He spent the time from July 13 to September 5, 1984 in the hospital, a good portion of which was in the ICN. Now in case folks aren't aware of it, hospitals are the most expensive hotels you can book, at an average MINIMUM of about $1200 per night. So...do the math. That was 55 days, plus the initial delivery procedure (I assisted if you recall), as well as all the tests and auxiliary treatments and medications. Cost to us: 0. Zip. Nada. I remember how you mentioned that your birthing procedure alone set you back $3500 or so.
Isaac is a great guy, just turned 20 this July.
#2. My mother (z"l) passed away November 2, 1996 after "a lengthy illness". Actually she had liver cancerand almost became a statistic because it's rare that anyone with that ailment can survive more than a few months, let alone the almost 18 months that she lasted with it. We suspect it was the result of a procedure that earlier removed a tumour in her large bowel, where we think a cell or two might have gotten away and taken up residence in the liver. Anyways, she was in the hospital for a good month before her passing and received the finest of care. Again, do the math. Cost to us or her estate: 0. Zip. Gournisht.
Now, it's true that there are problems, and that there are waiting lists. These lists are being pared down every day. Things are improving, but I can honestly say from some very direct experiences that the system largely works and works well.
The draft: Read my lips folks (or rather imagine them if you will): If Bush gets re-elected I can guarantee you that you'll have one within 6 to 8 months. You heard it here first.
Joe Krolik wrote:
"The draft: Read my lips folks (or rather imagine them if you will): If Bush gets re-elected I can guarantee you that you'll have one within 6 to 8 months. You heard it here first."
Thanks for contributing to the fear mongering.
One thing to keep in mind about hospital costs is that a lot of this is smoke and mirrors.
Example--my coworker had a hysterectomy a month ago. She gets the bill. $36,000, Like, Yow!
But....blue cross just writes off $32,000 right off the bat. just tells the hospital "You ain't getting it." And the hospital just bends over and takes it.
Now if she were uninsured they would bill her the full amount. And she would not pay it. So the hospital would eat the cost, again.
The end result is that, on paper at least, the hospital loses millions of dollars every year, if you look at services rendered vs income generated but somehow they manage to stay open. It all seems like some kind of shell game to me.
The ones I feel bad for are the doctors in private business like my ex-wife who had to ditch her business and go work for a hospital. On paper she was making big bucks but in reality the insurance company would just pay whatever they wanted and the poor people just wouldn't pay at all.
Not a great system but despite having a merely moderately paying job I can be certain that myself and my family are covered reasonably well. I'm going to want some airtight guarantees before taking a leap into a new system.
"Okay, I work at Wal-Mart, so believe me, I know what its like to deal with low wages. That being said, I DO NOT want the minimum wage raised. Why? Where do you think companies are going to get the extra revenue to pay for it? Are they just going to pay the extra money and not worry about it? No, they're going to raise the prices of their merchandise. And that helps people a lot...right?"
Actually, it would. Because, look at it this way. The prices at places where paying wages (such as, yes, Wal-Mart) are kept low because they're not paying their employees (i.e. YOU) good wages.
So, the wages go UP, and they can respond in one of two ways: increase prices, or let their profit margin take a ding.
MEANWHILE, your purchasing power at real businesses, where the costs are location, equipment and merchandise goes up because you have more money.
Not a great system but despite having a merely moderately paying job I can be certain that myself and my family are covered reasonably well. I'm going to want some airtight guarantees before taking a leap into a new system.
Heh. A point I ENTIRELY understand.
"Been off for a while, and I'm back. So....
Healthcare: 2 observations:
#1. Peter, you might remember years ago when I was talking with you about Isaac's birth and we were comparing notes."
I was actually thinking of you, Joe, when I asked about Canadians and their opinions on the matter. I remember it very well. You and I had gone to a hockey game, and seconds before the first puck was thrown out (or whatever you'd call it) you got paged because your son was in the hospital, and we hadda book out of there. And I remember you telling me all the health problems he'd had, and how if you were under the American healthcare system, you'd practically be broke. Instead, not a cent had it cost you. No deductibles. No instances where the hospital did a $1000 procedure, insurance would only cover $500, and you had to pay the difference. It was 100% covered. I was in awe of the simplicity of it.
PAD
Not a great system but despite having a merely moderately paying job I can be certain that myself and my family are covered reasonably well. I'm going to want some airtight guarantees before taking a leap into a new system.
That's all well and good, but why is health care in our country tied to employment? What about the people who don't have work or are working only part time? And do you know how much your employer is picking up? My husbands work covers the first $892.00 per month. Depending on the plans offered we get to pay the rest. (of course we have an alternative and do not need his works plan, since we get military retirements Tricare at $460.00 per year) Why can't there be a plan that can cover everyone for $460.00 per year? Both figures are for a family, not an individual. And each insurance has doctors you can select from, but no insurance allows you to go to the doctor of your choice. The doctor must be chosen from the list of those who accept your particular insurance. So, you want to keep waht you have instead of fixing the mess that the greedy insuarance companies have made of our system? Why?
"Not a great system but despite having a merely moderately paying job I can be certain that myself and my family are covered reasonably well. I'm going to want some airtight guarantees before taking a leap into a new system."
What does "reasonably well" mean? I sincerely hope this never ever happens, but what if someone important you gets seriously ill? How would you feel if the treatment for this person was simply more then you could afford?
Would going into severe debt or bankruptcy because it is the only alternative, sit well with you?
What about discovering that there may be better treatments or hospital care available, as long as you are in the upper-most income bracket?
I could never live with the idea that if only I had more money, better care and treatment would have been the result.
What if you lose your job? How well do you trust your insurance company? How many "air tight" guarantees doe you actually have now?
"I could never live with the idea that if only I had more money, better care and treatment would have been the result."
So you aren't an American? Or at least not a living one?
Becuae in American medicine, if you've got the money, you've got better care. That's the way it works in America. Actually, that's the way it works anywhere, if you can afford it, you can buy better treatment. May not be able to buy a cure, but the more money you have to spend, the better the care you can get. Simple fact of life there.
"So, you want to keep waht you have instead of fixing the mess that the greedy insuarance companies have made of our system? Why?"
Actually, what I said was "I'm going to want some airtight guarantees before taking a leap into a new system."
I'm a firm believer of the idea that things actually CAN be made worse.
Again, a simple solution--let's have a state or a few state try something new. If the improvements in health care are as good as people say they can be I'm sure people will flock to that state and the others will have to follow. If the state goes broke or raises taxes so high that people flee then I guess the added benefits aren't worth it.
"I could never live with the idea that if only I had more money, better care and treatment would have been the result."
Where is this not the case? Even some canadians have talked about how some of their countymen have traveled to other countries for treatment.Obviously, this is not an option for the poor.
If you have enough money you can hire your own personal doctor to follow you around. One of the benefits of having a lot of money, I guess.
So, the wages go UP, and they can respond in one of two ways: increase prices, or let their profit margin take a ding.
MEANWHILE, your purchasing power at real businesses, where the costs are location, equipment and merchandise goes up because you have more money.
Your arguement highlighted exactly why raising the minimum wage would be wrong. Unless I am reading it wrong.
Fred wrote: Again, my point in saying this wasn't at all about the fact that he prays. It is with the implications of his words. His statement iplies "magical thinking", which is one of the criteria for schizophrenia. Do I honestly think he has this? Nope, but it is dangerous thinking nonetheless.
Statements like this continue to reveal a belief that there is no "supernatural" realm. If it is ok for Bush to pray, why is it out of the realm of possibility for him to "feel" when people pray for him? Can it be proven? Of course not. Do you have to believe it? No. But it is patronizing to be told that "it is ok for you to say some empty words of prayer just so long as you don't really believe they make a difference" (which is what some of you really seem to be saying in your comments about Bush and prayer).
Jim in Iowa
Fred wrote: Again, my point in saying this wasn't at all about the fact that he prays. It is with the implications of his words. His statement iplies "magical thinking", which is one of the criteria for schizophrenia. Do I honestly think he has this? Nope, but it is dangerous thinking nonetheless.
>Statements like this continue to reveal a belief that there is no "supernatural" realm. If it is ok for Bush to pray, why is it out of the realm of possibility for him to "feel" when people pray for him? Can it be proven? Of course not. Do you have to believe it? No. But it is patronizing to be told that "it is ok for you to say some empty words of prayer just so long as you don't really believe they make a difference" (which is what some of you really seem to be saying in your comments about Bush and prayer).
>Jim in Iowa
The rest of that post explained why it is dangerous thinking. His "feeling" is used as justification for his behaviors and decisions, while his lack of "feeling" about dissenters' prayers goes unaddressed.
I don't claim to know or believe whether there is a supernatural world or not. Never been proven one way or the other to me, but I do know that your response doesn't accurately reflect my statement.
Fred
Christina wrote:
>I know a family that live in Italy, which has a
> government controlled health care system. They had
> their first child there and they hated it so much
> that they came to the States for the birth of
> their second child. They also come here if they
> need serious medical attention.
I live in Italy and know how the italian health
care system works.
Usually when i hear people saying such things
about our health care system i can bet they are:
1) filthy rich;
2) snob and a little stupid.
I say they are filthy rich and quite dumb
because they think it's better to fly oversea
and pay for everything instead of looking
around; there are private clinics
in Italy and in the countries nearby (i.e. Swiss)
at the same level of the best clinics in USA.
Even if you don't have much money if you
are italian you can *choose* the public hospital
you want to go to.
If you know an hospital is understaffed or
overcrowded you can choose another
(sometimes it happen, funding is
from national, regional and provincial healt
care administration, but the hospital
administrators are local, it can make a
difference in the level of service).
I won't go deeper about the local differences
(i'm from northen Italy, southern Italy
has more problems with corrupt burocrats
and other vultures like that) but if
you look around you will find public hospitals
with very skilled doctors and top level
service overall (both in northen
and southern Italy).
The best thing is, when you are ill you don't
have to worry about money, of fight with your
insurance to get the cure you need and not
the cure they will pay for, you just have
to worry about your health.
It's not all roses and flowers but IMHO
it works well compared to other alternatives.
The rest of that post explained why it is dangerous thinking. His "feeling" is used as justification for his behaviors and decisions, while his lack of "feeling" about dissenters' prayers goes unaddressed.
Fred,
I apologize if I misunderstood what you meant.
Let me put it this way:
If the supernatural is similar to classic "pagan" religions with multiple gods, etc., your point is valid. Why does Bush feel one side and not another.
If the supernatural is closer to the "Christian" world view where there is one supreme "God" who is not a "genie in the bottle" but a supreme person, then what Bush said makes sense.
You don't have to agree with Bush that he can "feel" prayers, but it fits his worldview that he would not feel opposing prayers.
Ultimately, I would suggest Bush does not just pray and then act based on a vague feeling. Bush's actions are rooted in some deep religious convictions based on his understanding of the Bible. When he referenced prayer, it was in two regards. First, he is not so arrogant that he things his interpretation of the Bible is correct. He prays about it and takes things before God. Second, his subjective feelings he referenced were people bringing him before God asking for him to have wisdom, safety, success, etc. Both understandings are the classical Christian belief about prayer and how it works.
Jim in Iowa
Jim:
>If the supernatural is closer to the "Christian" world view where there is one supreme "God" who is not a "genie in the bottle" but a supreme person, then what Bush said makes sense.
Makes sense, but still scares the hell out of me. Guess that's one way to save me. ;)
>You don't have to agree with Bush that he can "feel" prayers, but it fits his worldview that he would not feel opposing prayers.
Opposing prayers by millions of people who practice the same religion as him. It fits his worldview, but my original point was that his worldview is small-minded and dangerous.
Practice all one wants. I've known some wonderful people of faith. The most wonderful were those who did not ascribe to the belief that they were the absolute moral leaders of the world and all those who disagreed were casually and quickly dismissed. This, imo, is where Bush has hurt himself and our country the most. This dismissal of others, whether world leaders, entire nations or individual voters and citizens of the U.S., will be the reason that Bush loses, if he does.
Fred
"So you aren't an American? Or at least not a living one?
Because in American medicine, if you've got the money, you've got better care. That's the way it works in America. Actually, that's the way it works anywhere, if you can afford it, you can buy better treatment."
Me: Proud Canadian, all the way (with American family). While wealth = better health care in the US, that is not the way it works "anywhere".
Under our system the wealthy can not buy better treatment or jump to the head of the line. If they choose to go elsewhere to have the same treatment so be it, but the question is, is the same treatment, paid out of your own pocket better?
If a person needs a potentially life-saving treatment that is only available is the US for example, the Government picks up the tab. However for someone who decides to get knee surgery in the US as opposed to waiting up here, then they are on their own.
What I don't understand is how people can feel comfortable trusting an insurance company, which will look for every opportunity not to pay for care, and will always chose the cheapest option as opposed to the best option, when it comes to matters as important as health care.
I bet everyone on this board has some true tale of terror involving an insurance company.
(mine: my best friends' father paid extremely high premiums for his life insurance because of his poor health. He wanted the insurance to pay off his mortgage so his son's family could have his house once he passed.
He paid these premiums for 11 years. When he died 2 years ago the insurance company did not pay out 1 cent because the father (Charles) had signed the wrong line on the policy because of his deteriorating eyesight.
The insurance company accepted his money every month for 11 years but provided him with no coverage. I urged my friend to sue, but they did not have the money to cover the mortgage let alone hire a lawyer)
I know the mantra is the States is "anything Government run is run poorly and a private enterprise re: big business could run it better/more efficiently" but that is just very effective rhetoric for a political party when it serves their needs.
The US military is Government run and is very impressive, Homeland security is important enough that the government handles it, and health care for every American citizen should be considered just as important in my opinion.
"Windsor" Tunnel vision, eh Marc?
"Under our system the wealthy can not buy better treatment or jump to the head of the line. If they choose to go elsewhere to have the same treatment so be it, but the question is, is the same treatment, paid out of your own pocket better?"
Sure they can jump to the head of the line, they just leave Canada and come to the US for treatment.
The government won't provide health care in the US because the same corporations that run the Insurance companies buy and pay for the politicains and they propose and kill whatever legislation works out best for them.
In America, if you don't have health insurance, you damn well better be rich. Just walking in the door of the hospital can wipe out your life savings.
It's not that Americans prefer insurance companies, it's just we have no alternative.
Time to salvage the Iraq mess and health care by taking over Iraq permanently and using the oil of the country to fund universal health care for all Americans...
I make less than the poverty level for the San Diego metropolitan area ($26,000/yr, in case you're interested). My wife is considered permanently disabled, due to severe depression, anxiety disorder, and PTSD. I can't afford the insurance offered where I work - thankfully, we're poor enough to qualify for Medicare. Right now, she's in UCSD Hospital with an extremely bad double infection of one kidney (E. coli and something else - didn't catch), which is complicated by her diabetes (and I'm becoming amazed by how few people know what happens when bacteria hit a sugar-rich medium, like a diabetic's bloodstream). She's getting excellent care, undimmed by the fact that the hospital's going to have to reclaim all their costs from the state. (On the other hand, since I don't have any disabilities, my Medicare coverage comes with a $1200 deductible. I try very hard not to get sick.)
Jonathan, let me say right off that I hope things get better for you and your wife, I know a little of what it is like to have a loved one with some serious medical issues.
Bladestar: I liked the "Windsor tunnel vision" line :).
Irony: I've been all through the states several times but I haven't traveled to Windsor.
I don't know if it's a matter of semantics or not, but if person leaves their own country to get health care, then they aren't jumping the line at least in their country of origin. (maybe that's just how I rationalize it, who knows?)
I think I may have misunderstood the thought process concerning The U.S.-style health care system. I was under the impression that Americans don't want a Government paid-for system.
If it is really a case of being at the mercy of the insurance corporations' wishes then it would appear to be a hopeless situation.
All I know is that you shouldn't let anyone tell you that a paid-for-by-taxes health care system can't/doesn't work, that it is an evil communist idea, that it means your taxes would sky rocket.
(placing the starting threshold of middle-class income at $30 K / year/ person, my wife and I do quite well and are significantly above that threshold and we both get tax refunds every year)
There are more countries then just mine that use this type of system quite well, and The U.S. of A. has quite a proven track record for being innovators, I'm sure they could make it work
The idea of using Iraq's oil to finance the U.S. health care would at least be more honest then what is going on now. :)
It's sort of an interesting thing to see one poster say that at $26,000/yr they are making "less than the poverty level" while the very next posetr says they are doing quite well at the "middle class" income of $30,000/yr.
One of the resons I get nervous when someone proposes to "tax the rich" is that "rich" is a very subjective term. By what standards? Even someone at the poverty level here is quite possibly in the top 1% of the worldwide standard. (as I like to tell my students on the first day, just by going to college they are instantly in the top 1% of the educationally elite).
Peter wrote:
" You and I had gone to a hockey game, and seconds before the first puck was thrown out (or whatever you'd call it) you got paged because your son was in the hospital, and we hadda book out of there. And I remember you telling me all the health problems he'd had, and how if you were under the American healthcare system, you'd practically be broke."
Actually, it was the Rangers-Jets game if you recall and we had just sat down behind the Jets bench when my name came over the P.A. (I thought I had won something....darn it!). So off we tore to the arena office and subsequently to the van outside wherein you got to endure a healthy dose of my emergency driving capability (honed on the streets of Manhattan!), causing many white knuckles and a certain pasty color and consistency to the rest of your body, but we made it across town in about seven minutes give or take and you managed to hold down your dinner.
Seriously though, I didn't mention the part about Isaac having eight subsequent operations to do a shunt and the complications that this involved. All costing us nothing. He hasn't needed the shunt for years and it's been absorbed, but we used to joke that if he didn't get a cold by the time he was 35, he'd be just breaking even! Well guess what? Since those days, Isaac has been ill exactly one time that I can remember, and that was for one night. I think it was something he ate. This guy just does NOT get sick. Period. It's very bizarre, but I wish we could find out what it is and patent it. That's fifteen years of illness-free living.
And of course ot be banal about things, the real disappointment that night was not being able to sing both national anthems at the tops of our lungs. We will get that opportunity at a later date. just you watch!
Marc: I think I may have misunderstood the thought process concerning The U.S.-style health care system. I was under the impression that Americans don't want a Government paid-for system.
If it is really a case of being at the mercy of the insurance corporations' wishes then it would appear to be a hopeless situation.
Some of us would much rather have health care be a government benefit for all than be at the mercy of the insurance companies. People here are so worried that they won't be able to pick their doctor or that if the government gets a hold of healthcare it will be inefficient. Never mind that the insurance companies now dictate to your doctor what care you are allowed. Never mind about all the money that goes for administrative costs to keep the insurance companies going, instead of lowering medical costs. Politicians who get nice fat contributions to their campaigns (and probably other perks we aren't privy to) use scare tactics to keep Americans from demanding what most other civilized countries have.
Bill: It's sort of an interesting thing to see one poster say that at $26,000/yr they are making "less than the poverty level" while the very next posetr says they are doing quite well at the "middle class" income of $30,000/yr.
I lived in the panhandle of Florida for 10 years. I bought my home for $72,000 and sold it for $86,000. My property taxes on a third of an acre were about $600.00 per year. I now live in Washington state. I bought a comparable home to the one I had in Florida for $180,000, and my property taxes on our postage stamp sized yard is over $2000.00 per year. The cost of living in the south is very low, and as you can see by the value of the home I sold for only $14,000 more after 10 years, the cost does not rise too fast. My home here has gone up in value over $20,000 in only 3 years. So I can see how someone making $30,000 in one part of the country could be comfortable and someone in San Diego could be have financial difficulty. California's cost of living is outrageous.
Sorry, the italics should have been off after "well at the "middle class" income of $30,000/yr."
Bill Mulligan: "It's sort of an interesting thing to see one poster say that at $26,000/yr they are making "less than the poverty level" while the very next poster says they are doing quite well at the "middle class" income of $30,000/yr."
Actually I CLEARLY stated a per/person income of $30K/year was the just the STARTING threshold of middle class income. If your students followed along with your lectures/instructions this poorly how would you grade them?
To make it clearer: think of the middle class income level as ranging from the bottom $30k/individual to $70-$75K per individual.
I also stated that my wife and I both on an individual basis earn significantly above that $30K-each threshold.
While obviously no one is going to fully state their annual income, I will try to clarify that my wife and I would both be closer the higher end of the middle-class range I mentioned, then the lower end.
If the other poster meant that he and his wife's combined income was around $26 K then I think most would consider that low income.
This uneasiness about taxing the wealthy is just a smoke screen. It would be easy to pick a number and say anyone earning this much swag is definitely doing better then most people in the country. Example: any one earning in the top 2% should count.
Comparing income and educational levels to some world standard is nonsense. It's comparing apples to oranges.
For what it's worth, income tax should be a flat tax; one rate for everybody with NO loopholes. That results in those who can pay more doing so, and those who are just barely getting by paying less in a simple, fair way.
In terms of health care, I do remember hearing politicians suggesting that some sort of government-run health insurance be put in place only for those Americans that don't have/can't afford health insurance, or recently became unemployed. I wonder if that wouldn't be a quicker, easier solution to implement.
It would be easy to pick a number and say anyone earning this much swag is definitely doing better then most people in the country.
Well, when you start hitting that 6 figure mark, you SHOULD be doing better than some people, regardless of where you live. If not, your personal standard of living is set far too high.
But in general, it doesn't seem like many people compare income with the standard of living in said area. Having lived in southern Iowa, you could live well enough on $25k/year there. But in Denver? Forget about it.
Marc, I said that $26k was the poverty line for the San Diego metroplex. In some parts of the country, you can be comfortable on that kind of money. Here, where the average price for a house is over half a million dollars, and you can't get a two-bedroom apartment outside the slums for under $1000/mo, $26k is poor. I don't make quite that much. Due to her disabilities, my wife can't work - hard to hold down a job when stress makes you break down and either hide from everyone, or attempt suicide...
"So why not move?" I hear you cry. (Well, I;ve heard other people cry that, anyway.) Okay, smart guy, where exactly am I supposed to come up with the money to move my family any great distance? Remember that until that magical day of departure comes, we've still got to pay for food, rent, electricity, and gas (water and trash come in the rent, thankfully). Remember also that our autistic daughter has some special needs, which also cost money. At the end of the month, I'm still left scrambling to cover necessities (the computer I got secondhand, free, from the only practicing Communist I've ever met). There's nothing left over afterward for such fripperies as moving to a less-expensive part of the country. I'm trying to remain upwardly mobile, but around here, unless you've got a Ph.D. in biochemistry, it's not easy...
George Bush never seems to perform exceedingly well in debates. This is probably because he really isn't very good at public speaking. Frankly, though, I wish neither Bush nor Kerry would become president.
For those of you who missed it, here is part of an AP story:
"The fact that Senator Kerry is a person of faith is something that might help voters who are undecided," McCurry said.
Kerry has been explaining it more in recent weeks as he campaigns in socially conservative areas like rural Ohio. At a town hall meeting Saturday in Xenia, he talked about taking his rosary into battle during the Vietnam War. "I will bring my faith with me to the White House and it will guide me," Kerry said.
So my question is, will all of you who were upset that Bush brings his faith into the White House have a problem with Kerry? (I suspect not since in practice his stated faith does not currently guide him.)
Jim in Iowa
Sorry to be jumping in very late, but I only just got caught up on all the discussion. (Hell, we saw the debate a few days late as it was.)
Jim,
I will say that I'm disappointed by Kerry's statement, yes. Entirely too much of this entire campaign has seen each candidate try to out-macho and out-religion the other, and I think both tactics are unhelpful to say the least.
However, I'm a lot less disturbed by Kerry saying he'll let his faith guide him, because he has EXPLICITLY said that he will not legislate an article of his faith solely on the basis that it's an article of his faith. Bush, on the other hand, employs generals who refer to Iraq as a war against Satan.
Kerry explicitly acknowledged atheists and agnostics during two of the debates. Lisa looked at me and said, "hey ... we exist!"
On the other hand, back around 1991 Bush pere explicitly stated that "this is a Christian nation" and that he didn't consider atheists citizens.
Not real hard for me to see a difference there.
As for your previous statement that
First, he is not so arrogant that he things his interpretation of the Bible is correct. He prays about it and takes things before God.
Considering that Bush said outright during the last debate that "the Almighty wants us all to be free", it certainly sounds to me as if he believes he knows God's will outright. Now, that's not the same thing as "his interpretation of the Bible" -- but in my view, it's significantly worse. He's basically claiming that he can speak for God.
Let's recall that he said to a meeting in the Middle East last year that "God told me to strike at al-Qaeda."
I do not want someone in office who believes they get specific instructions to kill from a higher power. Not the Son of Sam, who got it from a dog; and not the son of George, who gets it from a god. One could argue that only a mild case of dyslexia separates the two. :-)
TWL
Welcome back Tim. Hope this means the baby is sleeping through the night and you have time to get back on the computer. :D
Only occasionally. :-) (Actually, she's gotten pretty good most of the time of late -- it's just that we're also in the first-quarter grading crunch at school...)
TWL
I live at 14573 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?