2004 Presidential Election [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : 2004 Presidential Election



JOEBIALEK
10-17-2004, 12:26 PM
I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought" (author unknown) which is a list of failures attributed to President George W. Bush. After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes. I will summarize this list and comment where appropriate.

A. Foreign Policy

1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community." While it is true that Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq, the fact that U.S. intelligence was so conflicting brings into question the judgment of Bush. I too was wrong in pushing for the removal of Hussein rather than staying focused on Bin Laden and the other terrorist organizations. Further, it is doubtful that Hussein could have developed WMD under the watchful eye of U.N.weapons inspectors and regular sorties flown by U.S. fighters throughout the no-fly zones (not to mention satellite surveillance). Kerry will need to initiate reconciliation through an international summit of European and Middle Eastern nations to begin the process of cleaning up this mess in Iraq (and worldwide). After the summit, the world will witness the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the quick advancement of U.N. troops into Iraq.

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers and thousands more are severely maimed prompting some to ask: hey hey GWB, how many kids will it be? The wiser choice would have been to invest 50 billion dollars in covert operations and 50 billion in homeland security. Besides, using conventional troops to fight terrorists is similar to the British army using regulars to fight French guerrillas during the Revolutionary War. Consequently, volunteerism for U.S. military service has sharply declined for all branches prompting rumors of a draft. Kerry will need to redirect resources to enhance homeland security while getting many more nations to share in troop and money commitments overseas especially in Iraq. He will also need to push Saudi Arabia and China to administer sanctions against Iran and North Korea to prevent further nuclear proliferation. Most importantly, however, he will need to fight terrorists overseas through covert operations.

B. Domestic Policy

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years.

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History." His presidency has been the most "in-your-face" support of the wealthy whether it be tax cuts, the lack of an energy and environmental policy, failure to crack down hard on corporate corruption etc. Kerry will need to bring back former Clinton advisor Robert Ruben to turn the economy around just as was done after the failed administration of Bush Sr. Kerry will need to fast-track the operationalizing of alternative energy sources in order to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil specifically and world oil in general. As a former prosecutor, he will need to push for long-term prison sentences for those committing white-collar crimes and reduce the difficulty of prosecuting the likes of Ken Ley.

Conclusion

The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.

JSE
10-17-2004, 04:18 PM
". After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes."

Well then, I guess we can all just take your word for it! After all, it's been authenticated. I guess there is no point in me voting since Kerry is the verified weinner.

As far as the rest of your post. A nice recap of the Democratic talking points. Blah, Blah, Blah.

JSE

Sir Terrence the Terrible
10-18-2004, 10:15 AM
". After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes."

Well then, I guess we can all just take your word for it! After all, it's been authenticated. I guess there is no point in me voting since Kerry is the verified weinner.

As far as the rest of your post. A nice recap of the Democratic talking points. Blah, Blah, Blah.

JSE

Whether you are for G.W, or not, there is no denying that these talking points are true. Some of the conclusions I highly doubt though( I do not think the UN will help us with Iraq). Unfortunately for Bush supporters, there is no denying the facts.

JSE
10-18-2004, 11:13 AM
Whether you are for G.W, or not, there is no denying that these talking points are true. Some of the conclusions I highly doubt though( I do not think the UN will help us with Iraq). Unfortunately for Bush supporters, there is no denying the facts.


Actually, these talking points are largely based on opinion and not actual facts. There are some facts within but the analysis of what these points mean is opinion. For example,

"1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community."

Well yes, Bush is the 1st president to do this. Is that a good or bad thing? Did he do so against the will of the UN? Maybe, but who cares. Since when does the UN dictate how the US acts? I also like the statement "did so against the will of.......the vast majority of the international community." The "VAST" majority? France, Germany and Russia? They are considered the vast majority? What about the 30 plus other nations that supported us and are part of the coalition?

and,

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. "

Recklessly? That's simply an opinion. Compromised the war on terrorism? Again, opinion.

and,

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down."

Really? Actually, he entered office after the downslide had already begun and has now been turned around due to W.

Anyway, you get the picture. JOEBIALEK's post in spin. Nothing more.

JSE

Sir Terrence the Terrible
10-18-2004, 01:53 PM
Actually, these talking points are largely based on opinion and not actual facts. There are some facts within but the analysis of what these points mean is opinion. For example,

"1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community."

Well yes, Bush is the 1st president to do this. Is that a good or bad thing? Did he do so against the will of the UN? Maybe, but who cares. Since when does the UN dictate how the US acts? I also like the statement "did so against the will of.......the vast majority of the international community." The "VAST" majority? France, Germany and Russia? They are considered the vast majority? What about the 30 plus other nations that supported us and are part of the coalition?

Yes, he did so againist the will of the UN. And not just the voting members, but non voting members as well. We should care, look at the amount of money leaving home, and going to Iraq. We didn't have to shoulder this much financial responsibility in the first gulf war. It is now squarely on our backs, and part reason the deficit is so high. Had you have been paying close attention, you would have found that we had absolutely NO support in the UN for this kinda of move. Those thirty nations that are part of the coalition, how many total troops did they contribute. Let's see, Poland contributed soldiers to fight, England did also, Spain, but now they are pulled out, and Australia. These are the only countries that contributed fighting soldiers. The rest of the 26 sent support staff only. In the first gulf war, there were approximately 20 countries that contributed FIGHTING units, not support staff. IMO, what we have now is not a coalition. Especially since we have had to promise them something to get them to partcipate.



and,

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. "

Recklessly? That's simply an opinion. Compromised the war on terrorism? Again, opinion.

Well considering we never found WMD, and we had people on the ground actively searching, and G.W didn't have the patience to wait until they were completed, an arguement can be made that we rushed to war. Had Hans Blix had the oportunity to complete his search, he could have concluded that no WMD can be found, eleminated the chance that troops would be deployed, and 1,000+ would still be alive, and 5,000+ would not be maimed or injured. We would also have 200 billion dollars more in our coffers, and countless Iraqi people still alive. The arguement that he(Hussein) would have given WMD to terrorist rings hollow when you think about the fact that Iraq didn't have any.
The arguement that he(Hussein) would have been a problem down the road also rings hollow since we have no way of knowing that at all(intelligence cannot predict the future)
It seems to me based on recent history, he(Hussein) was VERY preoccupied with Iran to pay us much attention(they were kicking his butt). As far as the compromise on terror, I think the world was with us on this, now I think based on the actions of Bush, we are pretty much in this alone. Especially in the way we are carrying this out.

Is the world better off with Hussein? Definately. But it would be better off without the leaders of North Korea, and Iran. Since we are in the business of deciding what is good for the world, let's just go in and take them out too, and any other that we deemed unsuitable for the world.


2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down."

Really? Actually, he entered office after the downslide had already begun and has now been turned around due to W.

Nobody in their right mind believes that a President controls the economy. That is bigger than even the office of the President. Our economy is cyclical, and has nothing to do with the President. However this President does have a direct effect in how much we spend, and we have spent our way from a surplus, to a deficit, the largest deficit in the history of this country. He has yet to veto a single spending bill(great fiscal responsibility). During his watch, the desparity between the wealthy and the poor has grown wider. More people lost their health insurance during his watch than any other President, and he didn't even talk about it until somebody else did This country is divided in a way unheard of in it's history, and his Presidency is directly responsible for that. We are easily the most hated country, and he the most hated President in the world because of his foreign policy. I don't know about you, but I have travelled to over 18 countries in the last 20 months. I have been spit on, cussed out, not served at deli's, chased out of various places, and had quite a few doors slammed in my face because I am American. Before this Presidency this NEVER happened to me. In those 20 months I have not heard one good thing about this President from anyone in these foreign countries including England, Italy Australia, or Spain. His tax cuts that he so proudly speaks of, I am sure the rich love him for it, but $300 he gave to middle class Americans was quickly eaten up by high gas prices, and increased health insurance costs. Some tax break huh. Those tax cut's have done a bit to increase the national debt, and have not done very much to get unemployed Americans back to work. States that had a dearth of manufacturing jobs, ask them how they benefitted from his tax cut to the wealthy.


Anyway, you get the picture. JOEBIALEK's post in spin. Nothing more.

JSE

Its either spin, or Bush supporters denial. Whichever, the results speak for themselves. Am I a Kerry supporter, not hardly. But IMO he is the lesser of two evils. To say that he(Bush) has kept us safe, and there have been no further attacks on this country is naive. These terrorist are smart enough not to try the same thing twice no matter who is President. It is easier to hit other countries that support us, and erode that support away(Spain, Philippines)

JeffKnob
10-18-2004, 02:41 PM
I find it interesting that Bush supporters seem to believe everything that Bush says without checking other sources for the facts. Bush is now saying that Kerry will prematurely pull out our troops from Iraq. Kerry has NEVER said that. He wants to follow a process of gaining the peace in Iraq, getting them setup with their own government, and then getting our troops home. I have no idea where Bush is getting this from. I don't see how Bush supporters can think it was right for us to go into Iraq like we did. Why couldn't we just let the political methods work their coarse like Bush said he was going to do? Why are Republicans so keen on war?

I am also very upset about the horrible spending practices of this administration. Bush says that he gave tax cuts to put more money in peoples pockets. That is great but then Bush needed to lower the amount he spends not spend more. If a persons income goes down due to a change in jobs or a demotion, does it make sense to spend more money? People say that Kerry is going to raise our taxes. I don't think he will. I am not totally apposed to it happening, afterall the money has to come from somewhere to payback the BS that Bush did. What we need to do is make the rich people pay their fair share? They make too much damn money for the actual work they do anyway. When you make that much money there are more things you are invested in which makes it easier for you to find tax loopholes. Most rich people hardly pay taxes. That isn't fair. We also need to audit where our tax money is going. Remove all of the BS that has been added to our budget. There is so much stupid spending being added to our budget by the congress adding stuff onto existing important bills. The bill gets passed because the main purpose is important. Kerry will clean this up.

Bush acts like a strong leader but if you don't have the brainpower to make good decisions you are no longer a good leader. We saw in the first debate how much of a retard he is.

JSE
10-18-2004, 02:58 PM
T,

You have some good points but I simply was responding to your statement that the talking points that JOEBIALEK posted are all true when is fact they are not. They are spin and nothing else. I'm not getting in a tit for tat with you over this because neither one of us can win. Why, because is comes down to our opinions.

I also called JOEBIALEK on the statement he made.

" After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes."

I guess he has manage to correctly predict the election's outcome and established the "truth" for all americans in regard to G.W. based on his research and analysis. What research and analysis? Let's see it. What a crock of dung. I am sure polsters, networks, and the candidates would like to see how he came to this conclusion. It might save us the hassle of an election. :confused: I guess in the end, it's just his opinon.

Have a good one! :D

JSE

Sir Terrence the Terrible
10-18-2004, 04:03 PM
T,

You have some good points but I simply was responding to your statement that the talking points that JOEBIALEK posted are all true when is fact they are not. They are spin and nothing else. I'm not getting in a tit for tat with you over this because neither one of us can win. Why, because is comes down to our opinions.

I also called JOEBIALEK on the statement he made.

" After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes."

I guess he has manage to correctly predict the election's outcome and established the "truth" for all americans in regard to G.W. based on his research and analysis. What research and analysis? Let's see it. What a crock of dung. I am sure polsters, networks, and the candidates would like to see how he came to this conclusion. It might save us the hassle of an election. :confused: I guess in the end, it's just his opinon.

Have a good one! :D

JSE

Actually I stated that I don't agree with some of his conclusions, and the landslide comment....WAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....right!!! This country is split right down the middle on everything under the sun. If you were to ask to take a pee, half the folks would say yes, and half would say no! Anyway, I am jaded, if these elections end up like 2000, the T-man is going to buy his own island, make myself president, and hold elections and vote for myself every year!!!

Woochifer
10-18-2004, 04:30 PM
Actually I stated that I don't agree with some of his conclusions, and the landslide comment....WAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....right!!! This country is split right down the middle on everything under the sun. If you were to ask to take a pee, half the folks would say yes, and half would say no! Anyway, I am jaded, if these elections end up like 2000, the T-man is going to buy his own island, make myself president, and hold elections and vote for myself every year!!!

Hey T -

I always thought you were a monarchist. Now, you're into elections and this democracy stuff, what up with that? Of course, guys like me would have to conduct sit-ins and chain ourselves to buildings for the right to vote in the Terrence Empire.

JSE
10-18-2004, 04:49 PM
If you were to ask to take a pee, half the folks would say yes, and half would say no!

Sounds to me like I would have to pee on the naysayers. :eek:

Have a good one.

JSE

woodman
10-18-2004, 05:26 PM
I find it extremely sad that 1/2 (approximately) of our population is walking about in such a state of deep hypnosis that they are totally oblivious to just what a corrupt, unscrupulous, and morally bankrupt administration is currently in power here in the USA ... it's absolutely mind-boggling!

I cannot quite agree with JoeBialek's assessment that we're gonna elect John Kerry in a landslide come Nov. 2nd, but I'm hoping with every fibre of my being that we DO elect him and that the outcome is not in doubt or challenged as it was in 2000. IMO, if our country is to survive we must retire the present administration and replace them with some people that have some semblance of concern for the "common people" instead of for the big corporations and those that derive their wealth from them.

Resident Loser
10-19-2004, 07:19 AM
...to the same coin"...meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."same product different packaging...I'd sooner vote for Nader but, IMHO, changing horses in mid-stream will send all the wrong messages...

Do you really think many of our elected monarchy have any real concern for us "wage slaves"? Reps AND Dems get money from the same corporate swine, don't kid yerself.

What we need are term limits and the original concept of citizen-leaders, who will return to farming or packing pickles or whatever after their public service...it's the class(and I use that term loosely) of "professional politicians" that's screwin' things up...pathological liars, lawyers and two-faced SOBs that they are.

jimHJJ(...I can say no more!...)

piece-it pete
10-19-2004, 09:14 AM
I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought" (author unknown) which is a list of failures attributed to President George W. Bush. After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes. I will summarize this list and comment where appropriate.

A. Foreign Policy

1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community." While it is true that Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq, the fact that U.S. intelligence was so conflicting brings into question the judgment of Bush. I too was wrong in pushing for the removal of Hussein rather than staying focused on Bin Laden and the other terrorist organizations. Further, it is doubtful that Hussein could have developed WMD under the watchful eye of U.N.weapons inspectors and regular sorties flown by U.S. fighters throughout the no-fly zones (not to mention satellite surveillance). Kerry will need to initiate reconciliation through an international summit of European and Middle Eastern nations to begin the process of cleaning up this mess in Iraq (and worldwide). After the summit, the world will witness the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the quick advancement of U.N. troops into Iraq.

I believe every occupation of a foreign county by the US was preceded by an order to attack.

UN, huh. Will someone point out ONE instance of a UN success militarily?

Why would we agree to be subect to a body made up of largely Dictatorial appointees? THAT isn't hypocritical?

Yes, Congress was given the SAME intellegence used by the Pres and came to the SAME conclusion. This is a dead horse, as the Dem vice chair of the 9-11 committee is in agreement with this assessment. It is pure politics by the Dems.

I seem to remember that Hussein tossed the inspectors out. While they were there, and when they were "allowed" back in, they were given the runaround EVERY DAY. Yeah, we should bank on this.

The WMD report on Iraq made it clear that all Hussein had to do was bide his time and had every intention of rebuilding his capability if possible. And with oil money, he always has the means.

Elect Kerry, and he will magicly get France and Germany to commit to Iraq, the sun will shine, and the world will love us. Russia has ALWAYS been with us behind the scenes, and since the school bombings up front.

Speaking of the school bombings, consider that Kerry will "return things to normal" terrorist-wise, but if these folks will go after their kinda "supporters" (they killed French citizens as well) how is he going to do this?

Judging by his long well documented record he will accomplish this by cutting the militaries' budget repeatedly and documenting abuses, while boosting our soldiers' morale by awarding medals that he does not believe in.

There can be no "schedule" to pull out troops in Iraq without disaster. It took seven years to put Japan back together, and we still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere.

Which BTW has not looted, raped, and pillaged those countries, but rather supported our successful efforts to install democratically elected gov'ts.



2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers and thousands more are severely maimed prompting some to ask: hey hey GWB, how many kids will it be? The wiser choice would have been to invest 50 billion dollars in covert operations and 50 billion in homeland security. Besides, using conventional troops to fight terrorists is similar to the British army using regulars to fight French guerrillas during the Revolutionary War. Consequently, volunteerism for U.S. military service has sharply declined for all branches prompting rumors of a draft. Kerry will need to redirect resources to enhance homeland security while getting many more nations to share in troop and money commitments overseas especially in Iraq. He will also need to push Saudi Arabia and China to administer sanctions against Iran and North Korea to prevent further nuclear proliferation. Most importantly, however, he will need to fight terrorists overseas through covert operations.

Those "rumors" of a draft came directly from the Dems. Recruitment in all branches of the military has met targets.

As noted above, Congress agreed with the Presidents' action, until they didn't. Sounds like the Kerry we know and love.

Most leaders, US and foreign, libs and cons knew something had to be done with Saddam. In earlier wars, the isolationists were called "know-nothings". These were usually Republicans. My, how times change!

The overriding problem with Saddam is simply this: he showed the Arab world that the US (and the UN, and the rest of the civilized world) was a sniveling coward of a society that was weak and scared, no backbone, a bunch of wimps.

This goes to the heart of the war on terror, that we are fighting a CULTURE of hate, not one individual. Saddam was playing to that culture, on the world stage, and doing it well.

The global approach is the ONLY one that will be successful in the long run. Want things back to "normal"? Better get used to our boys taking some casualties for a while.

Unless Kerry gets in. Then, he will wave his wonderful wand and all will be ok. He'll give Iraq to the terrorists (the result of a pullout, no matter what the rosy scenario), with a great supply of oil money and who knows what else, France and Germany veto power over our self defense, and all the people in the world, terrorists or otherwise, will throw down their weapons and cheer for the wonderful US of A.

It goes without saying we won't have to worry about any more attacks then.

Saudi Arabia and China. These statements always crack me up, because they are the same thing as saying nothing. Yes, we will make China and the Sauds do our will (or France, or Germany, or the UN). Jeez.



B. Domestic Policy

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years.

More true unbiased commentary?

It is well known that the economy was going down when GWB came to power. That "surplus"? Wasn't that the result of record tax income and a GOP house? Nope, it was Clinton.

Plus, there is the elephant in the room, the fact that the "surplus" was bogus, sheer fiction. In the last debate Kerry mentioned he "fixed" Social Security with the massive tax increase that came through our SS withholding, to be saved until the boomers hit 65.

If I was Bush I'd have said, "But what did you do with it? You spent it, didn't you?" Because that's EXACTLY what Kerry (and others) did. There was NEVER a surplus.

And if there was, why spend it?

Tax cuts WORK. Nobel prize-winning economist Edward Prescott recently called them too small: ""Tax rates were not cut enough" . I am for fairness, I don't mind the wealthy getting the same cut as me. "Tax the rich" has a communistic sound to my ears.

BTW, the class list for America: Poor. Lower middle. Mid middle. High middle. Somewhat rich. Very rich. Democrat rich.

Kerry, the liberal Democrat, to the LEFT of both Hillary and Teddy!, is going to balance the budget? lol.

People have VERY short memories, and his proposed massive gov't programs total A LOT.


2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History." His presidency has been the most "in-your-face" support of the wealthy whether it be tax cuts, the lack of an energy and environmental policy, failure to crack down hard on corporate corruption etc. Kerry will need to bring back former Clinton advisor Robert Ruben to turn the economy around just as was done after the failed administration of Bush Sr. Kerry will need to fast-track the operationalizing of alternative energy sources in order to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil specifically and world oil in general. As a former prosecutor, he will need to push for long-term prison sentences for those committing white-collar crimes and reduce the difficulty of prosecuting the likes of Ken Ley.

Ha! He's done more, put more abusers behind bars, than Clinton (the man in charge while this whole stinkin' corporate mess was cooking) did in 8 years!

"operationalizing of alternative energy sources" - right. Not to say it's not important to work on these things, but real world use is nowhere in the forseeable future. We need oil, like it or not. You think $2.00/gallon is high?



Conclusion

The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.

I believe this election is too close to call. The latest Washington Post poll (10-19, 3% margin of error) shows Bush holding his consistent lead, right now at 50% to 47%.

Failures of Bush. That sounds like a spin. Do I think Bush is perfect, that he's the be-all and end-all? Hardly. But he's a darnsite closer to the middle than Kerry, and does not skirt around tough calls dealing with the terrorists. Who do you think Osamas' pulling for?

Pete

FLZapped
10-19-2004, 10:48 AM
A. Foreign Policy

1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations

Gee, what about Nicaragua and Granada? Furthermore, you need to read the allt he resolutions that Sadam broke. Every single one of them said that any means available should be used to get him to comply. Furthermore, Annan dreamed up this illegal war crap to try and deflect the big hammer coming down on him regarding the oil for food scandel that he is in up to his neck.



2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." .

You may not be old enough to remeber that we lost up to 1000 per week in Vietnam. While WMDs were not found, all intelligence pointed to them, we now know why. I don't know why everyone gets stuck there. Saddam was offering 25 grand to every family of sucide bombers in Israel. Notice how these have since tapered? Notice the actions of Libyia? Notice the actions of Pakistan? Saddam had every intention of trying to get back to research and development of WMDs, part of Bushes speech about this indicated that he was a "gathering threat" - we now know this to be true. He was scamming the oil for food program and making millions as well as bribing whomever he thought could get him influence on the UN security coucil to get the sanctions against him eased, or removed. Racketeering 101.




1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years.

I agree he has run up the deficit. So did Regan and it resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union. We survived that against all the doomesayers. We will survive this. Bush warned that it could be a possibility in one of his speeches, although I no longer remember whch one. Oh, one other thing, that surplus was PROJECTED.

While it is true that some wealthy people beinifited greatly by the tax break, the majority of those in that category are small businiess owners who pay taxes on their corporation as though it was personal income. Considering the hit our economy took after 9-11 and the fact it was already slowing down, the turn around is nothing less than amazing. Most economist will tell you that this was a suprizingly shallow and short lived recession.



2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

This is a lie, the economy already was in decline when he took office.



Conclusion


You're looking for an excuse to support that communist sympathizing socialist.

-Bruce

FLZapped
10-19-2004, 11:08 AM
I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought"

And like Zoe Miller said of Kerry, you can be in the Senate, be wrong and not do much damage, but in the white house.....

Why aren't you having a fit over the fact that Kerry has not been in attendance ONE DAY since he started campaigning two years ago, yet he continues to draw his senatorial salary and partake in all its benifits.....if he was so damned concerned about the economy, he'd return his salary.

Why hasn't he signed that form 180 to release ALL his military records? Something to hide?

Why did he vote against the first gulf war and vote for this one? We had a somewhat bigger aliance then and what he would consider proper backing from the UN.(you know, "the test.")

Why did he vote against funding our troops this time? he complained that some of our the families of troops were buying stuff off the internet. If he would have had his way ALL OF THEM WOULD HAVE!

Why did he go to France and meet with the North Vietnamese(twice) when he was STILL a commissioned officer of the US Navy, which is a direct violation of Military Code.

Why, if he threw his medals over the wall of the pentagon, are they still hanging in his sentarorial office?

Why does he say he will build real aliances, yet says the current aliance of some 30 nations is the bribed and coerced? You really think that is a good strategy? Oh, I know, he means France, Germany, Russia, and China, who were all profiting and illegally dealing with Saddam under the oil for food program and circumventing the sanctions against him.

He says our troops are stretched too0 thin and that he would add two divisions to the army. Where is HE going to get them and how is he going to pay for it? A draft along with his democratic buddy Charlie Rangel who was the sponsor of the legislation that recently went down in flames??

He supports the kyoto treaty. Are you aware that to sign it would be to sign away our national soveriegnty? Read it sometime.

-Bruce
(Kerry is so scary)

FLZapped
10-19-2004, 11:36 AM
B. Domestic Policy


From: http://kerry-04.org/about/issues.php

In December 2002, however, Kerry called for the end of "double taxation" on dividends, perceiving the need to promote investment and more accurate corporate valuation. A mere five weeks later, Kerry voted against President Bush's plan to eliminate double taxation, which was nonetheless passed by Congress and signed into law. Now, Candidate Kerry plans to restore the system of double taxation on corporate dividends if elected.

All too telling, Kerry also opposes the elimination of the infamous death tax. Kerry's latest vote against the Bush tax cuts marked at least his tenth vote against tax relief over the course of his Senate career. In true form, Kerry voted in favor the largest tax increase in the history of the United States under Bill Clinton.

Not even a consistent demand-sider, Kerry has voted against balanced budget amendments no less than five times, and logged three key votes against overall reductions in federal government spending. Nevertheless, in his campaign platform, Kerry says, "Bush's irresponsible economic policies have borrowed from future generations. I will cut the deficit in half in my first term, while investing in economic growth and American workers." In other words, John Kerry is prepared to cut deficits by increasing taxes, not by reducing spending.

Concerning Kerry's spending habits of taxpayer money, the fiscally conservative group Citizens Against Government Waste, John Kerry scores a dismal lifetime rating of 26%.

Finally, a Kerry position isn't a Kerry position without a flip-flop. In September 2001, Kerry said, "The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn't do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy.... No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. ...you don't want to raise taxes."

Now, however, Kerry says in his election platform, "I will roll back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to invest in education and healthcare." In other words, Kerry advocates the redistribution of income to achieve social goals (a.k.a. Socialism), rather than allowing citizens the maximal use of their wealth to create more wealth, to the betterment of all.

Social Security & Healthcare

When it comes to the costliest, most economically dangerous entitlements in our country -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- John Kerry opposes desperately needed reforms, such as partial privatization, that would take America off this precipitous and unsustainable path. In his platform, Kerry offers the basis of a plan to offer near-universal health coverage to American, saying, "My plan expands health care coverage to 96 percent of Americans and 99 percent of all children."

What John Kerry is really saying, though, is that he doesn't believe in the free market, and would see the United States spiral into the same socialized healthcare abyss that now consumes Canada and many European nations. (How does a 50% tax rate strike you? -Bruce)

Also, for better or for worse, Kerry is no fan of Al Gore's Social Security "Lock Box," if his congressional record is any indication, voting at least five times to raid the fund.

In his platform, however, Kerry revisits the lock box theme, vowing to "take Social Security off the table when balancing the budget." At the same time, Kerry opposes even partial privatization of Social Security, on the grounds privatization would "cost" $1 trillion, causing deficits to spiral. By "cost" of course, Senator Kerry means loss of government revenue. But why would this matter, you might ask, if Kerry, in "lock box" fashion, vows to take Social Security "off the table" when balancing the budget? Good question.

piece-it pete
10-19-2004, 11:43 AM
Why, if he threw his medals over the wall of the pentagon, are they still hanging in his sentarorial office?

Bruce, it may interest you to know that, when he threw his medals to the roar of hippie approval, he actually threw his RIBBONS - he left his medals at home.

What a guy.

Pete

FLZapped
10-19-2004, 11:50 AM
Conclusion



John Kerry, a man of the people:

http://kerry-04.org/about/homes.php

JSE
10-19-2004, 11:57 AM
Joe? Where are you man. I defended you in your last post on 9/23 when you said,

" Accordingly, I hereby commit to returning no sooner or later than 24 hours after my post to answer counter arguments. "

I took that to mean you would defend yourself. So far your just lobbing political rhetoric. Are you able to respond? Do you want to respond? Or, do you just like making statements and don't really have the knowledge to back them up?

Looks like you have about 30 more minutes.

Just wondering?

JSE

dean_martin
10-19-2004, 02:14 PM
...to the same coin"...meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."same product different packaging...I'd sooner vote for Nader but, IMHO, changing horses in mid-stream will send all the wrong messages...

Do you really think many of our elected monarchy have any real concern for us "wage slaves"? Reps AND Dems get money from the same corporate swine, don't kid yerself.

What we need are term limits and the original concept of citizen-leaders, who will return to farming or packing pickles or whatever after their public service...it's the class(and I use that term loosely) of "professional politicians" that's screwin' things up...pathological liars, lawyers and two-faced SOBs that they are.

jimHJJ(...I can say no more!...)

C'mon, RL, where you been livin'? Some commune in Montana? First, let's look at our founding fathers.
Alexander Hamilton - lawyer
John Jay - lawyer
John Adams - lawyer
Thomas Jefferson - well-read in law and studied law
James Madison - well-read in law and studied law

Those who weren't lawyers were well-to-do merchants or large landholders.

It was Alexander Hamilton in his essays in the Federalist Papers who argued for a strong central government, one even stronger than the one we have. He argued for a representative form of government because he didn't trust the pickle-packers and family farmers with gov't operations. How can we go back to something we never had? Our system breeds the professional politician, especially in our version of the House of Lords - the U.S. Senate.

I also need to address this changing horses in mid-stream sentiment that a lot of folks seem to possess. Who's the recipient of "the message"? The same people who attacked us while we were on the horse we're on now? They attacked us and so far have gotten away with it. Signs and intelligence were there that attacks were possible yet our horse did nothing. My question is what message do we send if we keep riding the same old tired nag? Sometimes you have to shoot a horse with a broken leg. -

Tim, lawyer

FLZapped
10-19-2004, 02:29 PM
Bruce, it may interest you to know that, when he threw his medals to the roar of hippie approval, he actually threw his RIBBONS - he left his medals at home.

What a guy.

Pete

I think he has also admitted to throwing other peoples medals.....

Yeah, what a guy.

-Bruce

FLZapped
10-19-2004, 02:40 PM
A. Foreign Policy

The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers

The ORIGINAL cover of John Kerry's book THE NEW SOLDIER. John Kerry's friends, the so called Vietnam Veterans Against the War, were mocking the scene on Iwo Gima photographed during the Second World War. 6,825 American boys died to plant the flag on Iwo Jima. (Paraphrased from: http://kerry-04.org/new_soldier.php)

See that number, one battle, that's the total for just one battle in WWII. What has happened in Iraq to date pales in comparison to the sacrifices we've had to make in the past. Here, John Kerry has mocked them and denegrated the sacrifice asked of them to make to secure the freedom of the world against the tyrants in Germany and Japan!

And you REALLY think this guy will defend this country? If you do, I have a miracle interconnect to sell you.

-Bruce

dean_martin
10-19-2004, 02:41 PM
...to the same coin"...meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."same product different packaging...I'd sooner vote for Nader but, IMHO, changing horses in mid-stream will send all the wrong messages...

Do you really think many of our elected monarchy have any real concern for us "wage slaves"? Reps AND Dems get money from the same corporate swine, don't kid yerself.




RL, please don't think I'm pickin' on you because I've responded to your post twice. But, you're the only one who openned the door for me to get my message out. Here's one big difference I see. Unfortunately, it's a difference that doesn't seem to make a difference with most people until some tragedy hits.

FACING SOUTH EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION: "TORT REFORM," LONE STAR STYLE

Under Governor Bush, Texas led the way in making it harder for ordinary
citizens to get their day in court. What can we expect if the
corporate-backed "tort reform" movement succeeds in its dream: spreading
Lone Star justice across America?

By Stephanie Mencimer
SPECIAL TO FACING SOUTH/SOUTHERN EXPOSURE

On June 23, 1999, 24-year-old Juan Martinez and his uncle Jose Inez Rangel
were hydro-testing a pipe at the Phillips Chemical plant in Pasadena, Texas.
The pipe was about 10 feet from a reactor that manufactured plastic used in
drinking cups, food containers, and medical equipment. At a crucial moment,
plant operators opened the valves in the reactor out of sequence, sending an
excess of a volatile chemical into the reactor, where it mixed with a
catalyst to create a vapor cloud-and a fiery explosion. The blast coated
Martinez and Rangel with 500-degree molten plastic. They were burned alive.

Martinez and Rangel were not the first workers to die at the Phillips plant.
All told, 30 workers had been killed and hundreds severely wounded at the
plant in the previous 11 years. The worst of the accidents happened in 1989,
when an explosion killed 23 people at the plant. The chemical company paid
out $40 million to compensate for the death of one of the victims.

In the lawsuit filed a decade later by Martinez's widow, attorney John Eddie
Williams would write, "No other serial killer in this state has been allowed
to go unpunished and virtually unbridled for so long."
A few months after he wrote that line, Williams was downtown taking the
deposition of a worker from the plant. Williams looked out the window, he
says, and saw smoke. Another explosion at the plant. And another worker
dead-a man who had survived the 1989 blast. Seventy others were hurt,
including four men who suffered third-degree burns over half their bodies.
The explosion set off car alarms a mile away and closed nearby schools. "The
guy being deposed would have been there," says Williams.

All the pieces were in place for a big verdict-a statement from a jury of
average citizens who would punish the company for its long record of death
and indifference. After he presented the case to a mock jury, Williams says,
the mock jurors were so horrified by the facts some of them began boycotting
Phillips products.

But Phillips had little reason to worry. The company didn't even bother to
make a settlement offer to Martinez's family. It knew it could come into
court cushioned by a series of "tort-reform" measures championed by George
W. Bush during his first term as governor of Texas. Among them was a cap on
punitive damages, signed into law by Bush in 1995, which limited such awards
to the greater of $200,000 or twice the economic damages, plus up to
$750,000 for non-economic damages such as pain and suffering.

Bush hailed the cap as way of reducing "frivolous" lawsuits. In order for
the jury in the Martinez case to award punitive damages in excess of the
cap, it would have to find that Phillips had "intentionally and knowingly"
killed Martinez. In layman's terms, the legalese meant that the aggrieved
had to prove Phillips murdered Martinez, on purpose-a standard no civil case
in Texas has ever met.

The jury, which was not told about the damage cap during the trial, found
Phillips had been negligent and acted with malice in Martinez's death. It
awarded his widow, daughter, and parents $7.8 million in actual damages and
$110 million in punitive damages-the equivalent of one month's profits for
the company. But state law would reduce the punitive damages to $3.2
million, making the entire award a fraction of one percent of Phillips's
annual profits.

For Texas trial lawyers, awards of that size give mega-corporations like
Phillips the green light to make business and safety decision based on
life-versus-profit calculations they term "Pinto math." That's the crude
calculation used by the Ford Motor Company in the late 1960s and early 1970s
when it decided it was cheaper to let hundreds of people die each year than
to spend about $5 per vehicle to prevent Pintos' gas tanks from exploding in
rear-end accidents. Without the threat of high punitive damages in wrongful
death lawsuits, Texas oil and chemical companies like Phillips have little
incentive to spend money to improve unsafe plants and pipelines. Certainly
the government isn't going to make an impact: Federal officials cited
Phillips for serious safety violations in the 1999 explosion that killed
Martinez and Rangel, but fined the company just $140,000. Steven Daniels, a
researcher with the American Bar Foundation, says "Workers are just at the
mercy now of their employers and the insurance companies."

It's a state of affairs whose genesis can be traced back to Bush's long-shot
run for governor of Texas in 1994. Bush won by running a relentlessly
on-message campaign, harping on three or four key issues - among them his
proposed limit on "junk lawsuits" by consumers and injured workers. In
January 1995, just a few days after he took office, Bush met with members of
a corporate-funded group, Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, at a salsa factory
outside Austin. Declaring a legislative emergency on out-of-control
lawsuits, Bush said "Tort reform is the most constructive and positive and
meaningful economic development plan Texas can adopt." Calling the laws a
"job creation package," Bush went on to sign a series of measures that
severely restricted citizens' ability to seek civil justice.

Now, as Bush seeks his second term in the White House, he and his backers
have gleefully attacked Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards as
a parasitic trial lawyer - and Bush is fighting for another four years in
office in which he hopes to get a chance to finally spread his Texas tort
reform agenda nationwide. "He's trying to take some of the worst policy with
the state of Texas and import it nationally," says Austin plaintiff attorney
Mark Perlmutter. Nine years into the transformation of the Lone Star State's
civil justice system, the experience of Texas is a preview of what the rest
of the country might look like if Bush succeeds.

THE LIONS OF TORT REFORM

Whether they realize it or not, Americans are constantly hearing pitches for
tort reform. A famous example is the case of the too-hot coffee from
McDonald's. In 1994, Stella Liebeck, an 80-year-old woman from New Mexico,
won a $2.7 million jury award from McDonald's for burns she suffered after
spilling coffee purchased at one of the chain's drive-through windows.

Jay Leno and other talk-show comedians had a blast, riffing on lawyers and
hot beverages for monologue laughs. The punch lines, however, wouldn't have
worked too well with a more detailed set-up: Liebeck suffered third-degree
burns on her private parts. She needed an eight-day hospital stay plus skin
grafts to recover from the injury. At first, she had asked McDonalds to
simply pay her medical bills, but the company refused. Documents uncovered
during her lawsuit showed coffee buyers had filed more than 700 claims
against McDonalds alleging that its coffee was too hot for human
consumption. When the case went to trial, jurors did indeed award $2.7
million in punitive damages - to punish McDonalds for failing to remedy the
problem that it knew was injuring lots of people. A judge subsequently
slashed the award to $480,000 - a detail that late-night comedians and tort
reformers haven't seen fit to mention, either.

Facts and nuance notwithstanding, the tort-reform lobby thrives by
convincing the public that courthouses nationwide are passing out
multimillion-dollar awards for spilled coffee every day. The real victims,
tort reformers claim, are thousands of small businesses that are careening
into bankruptcy as they try to defend themselves from frivolous claims. And
in the early 1990s, they began a massive PR campaign that insisted that
Texas, with some of the best trial lawyers in the country, was a "plaintiffs
' paradise" and a magnet attracting people to the state to play the "lawsuit
lottery." Tort reformers asserted that the legal system needed an overhaul
to make Texas more business-friendly. Tops on their wish list was a cap on
punitive damages.

To push that agenda, Texas's tort-reform pioneers coalesced under the banner
of Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR), which opened for business in 1994, the
year Bush ran for governor. At its kickoff, founder Richard Weekley
proclaimed that lawsuit abuse was "the No.1 threat to Texas' economic
future." Like most other tort-reform offensives, TLR's seized on a populist
notion with adherents from coast to coast-namely, that lawyers are ruining
America by bankrupting corporations with outrageous claims against honest
companies. Yet some of TLR's die-hard members hardly seem like innocent,
abused entrepreneurs. A sampling:

. Enron CEO Ken Lay gave $25,000 in start-up funds for TLR. Lay had written
to Bush in 1994 that if Texas didn't do something about its "permissive"
legal climate, Enron might just have to leave the state. Today, after more
than 4,000 Enron employees have lost their jobs and their retirement funds
invested in the company, Lay's reasons for wanting legal immunity seem
pretty obvious. But back then, Lay had more pedestrian concerns about its
gas and energy operations. In 1994, one of the company's methanol gas plants
exploded in Pasadena, Texas, injuring several people working nearby. A
neighboring chemical corporation sued Enron to block the plant from coming
back on line, arguing that it had a long history of flagrant violations that
were endangering workers.

. Richard Weekley, the driving force behind TLR, is a strip mall developer
whose family owns David Weekley Homes, one of the nations' largest
homebuilding companies. David Weekley Homes is notorious in Texas for shoddy
home construction and a host of worker safety violations. Dozens of
homeowners with cracked and shifting foundations have attempted to file suit
against the firm, alleging that their new homes began falling apart almost
immediately after they moved in.

. James Leininger, founder of the Texas Public Policy Institute, which did
the early polling to come up with the term "lawsuit abuse." Leininger heads
up Kinetic Concepts, a company that makes high-tech hospital beds that have
prompted a rash of lawsuits from patients and nurses alleging that the
rotating beds had dropped or crushed patients.

. Jim "Mattress Mac" McIngvale, another TLR funder, is a furniture store
owner who got sued after a 300-pound African lion kept at his Texas Flea
Market mauled an 8-year-old girl and tore off part of her skull in 1987. The
girl required extensive reconstructive surgery and faced the prospect of
permanent brain damage. Her parents, who had no health insurance, sued
McIngvale for allowing the lion (which was owned by somebody else) on the
premises.

The questionable business habits of many of Texas' leading tort reformers is
one reason their efforts had been mostly unsuccessful before 1994. But Bush
changed things. Austin consumer attorney David Bragg says Bush was the
friendly face TLR and the others needed to make lawsuit reform palatable to
the public. "In the same way that Reagan legitimized the Christian right,
Bush legitimized tort reform in Texas," Bragg says.

Backing tort reformers, the governor endeared himself to a broad coalition
of wealthy industry groups that had been attempting to push through limits
on civil lawsuits nationally since the mid-1980s, particularly the tobacco
industry. The year of Bush's first gubernatorial campaign, the tobacco
industry set aside $100,000 to underwrite a public relations campaign in
Texas heralding the epidemic of "lawsuit abuse" in the state. Tobacco money
also helped create Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse and provided $15,000 in
seed money to TLR.

When Bush lined up on their side, that money started flowing his way. People
and groups associated with tort reform donated more than $4 million to his
statewide campaigns, more than any interest category other than oil and gas
companies. As Bush's longtime political advisor (and former tobacco industry
consultant) Karl Rove explained to the Washington Post in 2000, once Bush
declared war on "junk lawsuits," "business groups flocked to us."

The tort reform campaign also gave Bush a big stick with which to bash trial
lawyers like John Eddie Williams, who plow their multi-million legal fees
back into the Democratic party. Trial lawyers are, along with unions, one of
the biggest sources of funding for the party.

One thing the measures promoted by Bush didn't do was combat frivolous
lawsuits. After all, it wasn't the little "slip and fall" suits Enron was
worried about. As Williams says, "Frivolous lawsuits by definition are worth
nothing." Besides, a state rule had been on the books for 15 years that
allowed for sanctions against lawyers who file groundless lawsuits. "What
they've done is outlaw big recoveries in good lawsuits," says attorney
Perlmutter.

And despite all the rhetoric, Texas never suffered from a "litigation
explosion."

"There was never a time when Texas juries gave away lots of money all the
time," says Steven Daniels, a researcher at the American Bar Foundation who
has studied the impact of Bush's tort reforms on Texas. "Juries in Texas are
almost always stingy." Bragg, a former lawyer in the state attorney general'
s consumer protection office, once did a survey of the awards granted under
the state's consumer protection act, which allowed defrauded consumers to
recover triple damages from misbehaving businesses. It was hardly the major
threat to the state's economy that the tort reformers portrayed. Before the
law was eviscerated in 1995 by Bush's tort reforms, Bragg found that
plaintiffs won their cases less than half the time in Dallas, and even when
they did "win," they rarely got any money. "But tort reformers decided there
was a problem and mounted a major effort to change that law," he says.

Under his campaign pledge of bipartisanship, Bush managed to persuade the
Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bob Bullock to go along with a package of
measures that severely limited citizens' ability to win damages against
corporations, doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies. The tort
reformers couldn't have been more pleased. Ralph Wayne, head of the Texas
Civil Justice League and co-chair of Bush's 2000 presidential campaign,
says, "It is amazing the way someone like George Bush can make a difference.
It was a marvelous year for us. Had it not been for George Bush and his
persuasiveness we would not have been as successful."

Those bipartisan "reforms" had their desired effect. Since Bush signed the
bill in 1995, the number of personal injury suits filed in Texas has
plummeted 40 percent, despite a rapid increase in the state's population.
Consumer lawsuits against sleazy car dealers, shoddy mobile home dealers,
and other crooked businesses have become almost nonexistent, as have the
lawyers who used to handle them. Daniels says lawyers simply can't afford to
take cases that don't hold the possibility of punitive damages or awards for
mental anguish because the actual amount of money involved in such cases is
often so small. "Whether it was intended to or not, it may have the effect
of cutting off the access to the courts. If [lawyers] don't want to take
your case, you don't get into court," says Daniels. The behavior that
spawned many of those suits in the past hasn't disappeared. But without the
lawsuits, the public simply doesn't know about it.

TORT REFORM CURE-ALL

The first thing President Bush did this year when he went to meet with newly
elected California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was declare his intention to
discuss his campaign on frivolous lawsuits. "We need a little tort reform in
this great state of California," Bush announced. "Unfair lawsuits harm a lot
of good and small businesses. There are too many large settlements that
leave the plaintiffs with a small sum and the lawyers with a fortune.Job
creation will occur when we've got legal reforms."

As president, Bush has continued to chat up tort reform at every
opportunity. In fact, now that he's passed most of his tax cuts and an
education bill, tort reform often seems to be the administration's only
domestic policy initiative and its only answer to any of the nation's ills.
What's the Bush plan for helping 44 million uninsured Americans? Medical
malpractice "reform," a bill in Congress that would impose Texas-style
lawsuit restrictions on the rest of the country, capping punitive damages in
lawsuits against drug companies, hospitals, nursing homes, and medical
device manufacturers. The White House response to the 3 million people who
lost jobs in the administration's first three years? Class action reform,
legislation that would federalize most class action lawsuits, essentially
eliminating those pesky complaints against Wal-Mart in California alleging
that the company stiffed its low-wage workers on earned overtime.

After listening to the rhetoric for the past eight years, at least one
Republican small businessman back in Texas is no longer buying it. A few
years ago, if you had asked Houston small business owner and Republican Walt
Shofner whether he supported Bush and his war on lawsuits, he would have
said yes. But in 2000, Shofner discovered the reality behind the PR
campaign. His company designed software for insurance companies, and had
recently beaten out a larger competitor on a bid to upgrade software at
Prudential Life in New Jersey. Afterwards, the competitor, Computer Science
Corp. (CSC), accused his firm of violating a nondisclosure contract and
asked American Express and Prudential to cancel their contracts with
Shofner, which they did. Shofner sued, arguing that CSC, a corporate giant
with nearly $10 billion in revenues in 2000, was simply trying to squelch
competition. The jury agreed and awarded Shofner $8 million in punitive
damages.

But after the jury announced its verdict, the judge declared that he had to
reduce the award to $200,000 because of the damage caps Bush signed in 1995.
Shofner-as well as the jury-was shocked. Fred Kronz, one of the jurors in
the case, says he couldn't believe the news. Kronz says the jurors took
their job seriously and spent a lot of time trying to come up with an
adequate punishment for CSC, which they believed was clearly in the wrong.
During the trial, everyone in the courtroom knew about the damage cap except
the jurors, who only learned of it after they announced their verdict,
making their deliberations seem like a charade, says Kronz.

The decision essentially killed Shofner's business. He says, "CSC had no
trouble paying me off. They got two or three million in revenue after I left
[the other firms]. I got zapped for chump change by my competition. They
have almost a monopoly on the software now."

Shofner is now a vocal critic of lawsuit restrictions: "Tort reform assumes
that all plaintiffs are crooks. But if a case gets far enough to get an
award, that's not frivolous. I was a Republican. I guess I still am. But I'
ve seen the light. . . . Any small business person in Texas is at risk."

UNLITIGATED, UNPROTECTED

In fact, Texans may not become fully aware of what they've lost through the
state's tort reform until they need a lawyer. That's what happened to Jacque
Smith last year. In November 2003, Smith's 85-year-old mother, an Alzheimer'
s patient, was living at the Heritage Duvall Gardens nursing home in Austin.
Late one night, a staffer entered Smith's mother's room and allegedly raped
the elderly woman. Another employee witnessed the assault, but apparently
didn't bother to report it to anyone and went home after his shift finished.
Smith only learned about the assault because the witness mentioned it to
someone at the home during an unrelated conversation later the next day.
After her mother was examined at a hospital, the assailant was arrested and
charged with aggravated sexual assault.

Smith then consulted a lawyer about filing suit against the nursing home for
poorly supervising its employees. In the past, such a suit might have
garnered a multi-million dollar settlement or jury verdict for the victim.
Texas has some of the worst nursing homes in the country. A 2002 study by
the special investigations division of the U.S. House Committee on
Government Reform found 40 percent of Texas nursing homes committed
violations of federal regulations that caused harm to nursing home residents
or placed them at risk of death or serious injury. More than ninety percent
did not meet federal staffing standards. The poor conditions of Texas
nursing homes led to a cottage industry in the legal profession, whose
lawsuits posed much larger threats than any state sanctions.

A Harvard University study found that nearly 9 out of 10 nursing home
plaintiffs received compensation, a success rate that the study deemed "off
the scale" in personal injury litigation, and a sign that the negligence as
well as the severity of injuries in the cases was clear-cut. Rather than
pledge to clean up its act, the nursing home industry lobbied hard for the
passage of legislation that would put the lawyers out of business. The state
passed the nursing homes' favored medical malpractice bill in September
2003, capping pain and suffering awards at $250,000.

The new law has produced the results desired by its backers. When Smith
looked for an attorney, she discovered her first hurdle might be simply
finding one willing to take the case. The first attorney she called
declined, as few lawyers in Texas will now handle such a complaint. Then she
contacted Bragg, who explained to her that the most her mother could win
would be $250,000, because there were no economic damages involved. Smith's
mother, after all, didn't have a job to lose and she didn't incur
significant medical bills. After taxes and legal fees, she would receive at
most $100,000. That would make her ineligible for Medicaid, meaning the
money would end up being funneled back into the nursing home industry that
failed her in the first place.

As a result, Smith says she's unsure whether she will pursue legal action
because she worries that any money that might result from it would not be
used to improve the quality of her mother's life. But she is frustrated by
the prospect of simply dropping the case. "It feels like somebody should be
held accountable," she says.

According to a study by the Dallas Morning News, since the bill's passage
medical malpractice lawsuits in Texas have fallen off by 80 percent.
Ironically, in giving advice to citizens on how to choose a nursing home,
the Texas Attorney General's office suggests using the number of lawsuits
against a home as a good gauge of quality. Its web site counsels, "A nursing
home that gets sued frequently should not be your first choice." How the
public will make these choices in the future? The web site doesn't say..

To see a full copy of this story and additional information, visit:
www.southernstudies.org

#

Stephanie Mencimer was a finalist for a National Magazine Award for her
reporting in The Washington Monthly on the battle over medical malpractice
and tort reform. She is the author of "The Price of Confession," which
appeared in the Fall/Winter 2003/2004 edition of Southern Exposure. Funding
for this story was provided by the Alicia Patterson Foundation and the Fund
for Investigative Journalism, and will appear in the upcoming edition of
Southern Exposure magazine.

dean_martin
10-19-2004, 03:01 PM
The ORIGINAL cover of John Kerry's book THE NEW SOLDIER. John Kerry's friends, the so called Vietnam Veterans Against the War, were mocking the scene on Iwo Gima photographed during the Second World War. 6,825 American boys died to plant the flag on Iwo Jima. (Paraphrased from: http://kerry-04.org/new_soldier.php)

See that number, one battle, that's the total for just one battle in WWII. What has happened in Iraq to date pales in comparison to the sacrifices we've had to make in the past. Here, John Kerry has mocked them and denegrated the sacrifice asked of them to make to secure the freedom of the world against the tyrants in Germany and Japan!

And you REALLY think this guy will defend this country? If you do, I have a miracle interconnect to sell you.

-Bruce

So, you've bought in totally to this propaganda of half truths spewed forth from the mouths of people who weren't there and snippets of testimony and lines from books taken out of context. What is a young man to do? He goes off to war with no real goal or objective yet he kills and is shot at just like those who fought with an objective. He's the one who was cheated, not those who went before him and fought the good fights for legitimate causes.

Geez, we've lost about a thousand in Iraq SINCE Bush declared victory/success in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier. In a day and age of precision strike weaponry, in a war where our oppenents have no air force and no real ground equipment to speak of, believe it or not, some of us are surprised that we are still losing lives in a war that we were told we won a long time ago. This "shut up and salute attitude" is the most anti-American sentiment I've witnessed in my young life. Where's Piece-it-Pete with his quotes? There's one about "patriotism" that I think, unfortunately, fits about half the country.

FLZapped
10-19-2004, 03:04 PM
FACING SOUTH EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION: "TORT REFORM," LONE STAR STYLE


Right, and Edwards, using junk science, sued a bunch of obstetricians in his area and caused them to change the way they did deliveries. They were forced, because of Edwards suits, to do only C-Sectons, which are more dangerous to the mother and the baby, increases hospital time and drives up medical costs.


Made him millions, enough to buy three houses. Another man of the people.

-Bruce

JeffKnob
10-20-2004, 04:47 AM
Why is it that everybody here can come up with a defense for the actions of our president but our president can't?

Everytime new information comes out clearly proving that Bush screwed up he comes up with some other reason. It is exactly the same reaction has when they have been lying about something and get caught; they come up with another lie to protect themselves. It is obvious to half of this country.

We went to Iraq because there was intelligence that said that Saddam was a threat. There is now proof (I am not going to bother to cite it because it is all over the place) that Saddam didn't have any of the things we went in to find. Why won't Bush just say our intelligence was wrong and we shouldn't have gone in?

I don't understand why the republicans insist that Kerry is going to pull out of Iraq immediately. That has never been said. Both Bush and Kerry have very similar plans for Iraq a this point. Kerry is just going to actually get the plans going. Bush doesn't seem to be implementing any plans. This is how Kerry is going to get us out earlier.

As for the economy, I have been hearing that tax cuts are what helps our economy. What doesn't make sense is if you cut taxes, there is less money in the budget, if there is less money, then you must spend more. If you cut taxes, don't spend more!!! It is common sense that each person in America uses in their private lives but for some reason half of America thinks it is ok for the goverment to spend spend spend!!!

I just registered and voted yesterday. I am in a swing state, WI, so my vote will definitely make a difference. : )

Resident Loser
10-20-2004, 05:20 AM
...had I not mentioned "lawyer" we wouldn't be having this exchange...LOL

"Alexander Hamilton - lawyer"

Three cheers for Aaron Burr! Was AH an early version of Bubba in a powdered wig? Was Maria Reynolds HIS Ms. Lewinsky?

"John Jay - lawyer"

Ifn yer gonna' be a judge and write treaties an' all I suppose ya gotsta be one...

"John Adams - lawyer"

The first "professional" Politician? May have spawned the concept of politcal "dynasty" with JQ.

"Thomas Jefferson - well-read in law and studied law"

TJ was a polymath...Well-versed in many things...Can't fault him for wanting to learn...I certainly wouldn't hold it against him...

"James Madison - well-read in law and studied law"

In order to play the game you must be conversant with the rules...he(and others) advocated limited power for the federal government...

And re: "changing horses"...I'll pose the same question I have in the past...Do you think 9/11 was contrived over scones with clotted cream at high tea on the tenth...Wanna' get into our support for those who occupy Palestinian lands and the self-serving reasons behind it?

BTW, "Patriotism is the last bastion of the scoudrel" Samuel Adams, second cousin to John...well known essayist, lexicographer, biographer and all-around pithy wit...simply his opinion. I prefer Ben Franklin's quote of "F@rt proudly"

jimHJJ(...a nice raspberry tort with some Earl Grey would be loverly 'bout now!...)

dean_martin
10-20-2004, 05:46 AM
.

BTW, "Patriotism is the last bastion of the scoudrel" Samuel Adams, second cousin to John...well known essayist, lexicographer, biographer and all-around pithy wit...simply his opinion. I prefer Ben Franklin's quote of "F@rt proudly"

jimHJJ(...a nice raspberry tort with some Earl Grey would be loverly 'bout now!...)


Excellent, RL! I thought it was Samuel Johnson, the English literary giant of whom my English Lit prof said would despise anyone for using two-ply, cottony soft toilet paper to wipe their ass. I never quite figured that one out.

JSE
10-20-2004, 06:41 AM
As for the economy, I have been hearing that tax cuts are what helps our economy. What doesn't make sense is if you cut taxes, there is less money in the budget, if there is less money, then you must spend more. If you cut taxes, don't spend more!!! It is common sense that each person in America uses in their private lives but for some reason half of America thinks it is ok for the goverment to spend spend spend!!!

I just registered and voted yesterday. I am in a swing state, WI, so my vote will definitely make a difference. : )

Your not taking your thinking on the economy far enough. I'm no economic master but here is a very basic explaination

Taxes are cut. That puts more money in people's pockets. People spend this money on goods and services or invest. Because of increased sales and investment, production goes up. Increased production and sales means companies make more money. Companies making more money can hire more employees, expand, grow. Now that more people and companies are working and making more money they pay more taxes.

That's a very simplistic explanation so maybe someone else can chime in with a more detail explaination.

Another way to look at it is, consumer spending drives the economy. More money in your pocket promotes more cosumer spending.

In terms of your vote, maybe you should "bone-up" on the issues and understand them so you can make a informed decision. That would make a worthwhile difference.

JSE

piece-it pete
10-20-2004, 06:52 AM
He's the one who was cheated, not those who went before him and fought the good fights for legitimate causes.

A soldier does his job. That job is NOT decided by him. The minute soldiers are allowed, or worse yet encouraged by fifth column elements here at home to insubordination our effectiveness as a fighting force is finished and we will be put down by our enemies.


Geez, we've lost about a thousand in Iraq SINCE Bush declared victory/success in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier. In a day and age of precision strike weaponry, in a war where our oppenents have no air force and no real ground equipment to speak of, believe it or not, some of us are surprised that we are still losing lives in a war that we were told we won a long time ago. This "shut up and salute attitude" is the most anti-American sentiment I've witnessed in my young life. Where's Piece-it-Pete with his quotes?

Here I am!

Bushs' appearance on the aircraft carrier was twofold - congratulating our boys on a job well done - which it was - and marking the transition from invasion to occupation - which it was.

Ask any graduate of West Point if a war can be won without ground troops. Pushbutton war is a myth loved by folks who cannot face the fact that troops get shot and bombed, or are duped by people, earnestly or deceictfully, telling them it would work.

I do not like it. I ferverently wish it were not so. But those boys are heros whether or not the war is "justified" - they die doing their duty.

Quote?

When, in spite of all efforts to avoid it, a republic must go to war, the focus of the nation is temporarily changed. The President, as Commander-In-Chief, assumes the extraordinary powers necessary to conduct the all-out effort. Citizens and legislators must then put aside differences and unite against the common enemy. Undesirable conduct may be forced on the republic in dealing with an unscrupulous enemy.

Jefferson
_______

Presenting an united front to the enemy. What a concept.

That said, I have always believed that, if we are truly free we will, no, we MUST discuss the things that matter to us collectively, and foreign deployment of troops surely rank high:

Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let me label you as they may.

Mark Twain
___________

Pete

FLZapped
10-20-2004, 06:55 AM
So, you've bought in totally to this propaganda of half truths spewed forth from the mouths of people who weren't there and snippets of testimony and lines from books taken out of context. What is a young man to do? He goes off to war with no real goal or objective yet he kills and is shot at just like those who fought with an objective. He's the one who was cheated, not those who went before him and fought the good fights for legitimate causes.

Geez, we've lost about a thousand in Iraq SINCE Bush declared victory/success in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier. In a day and age of precision strike weaponry, in a war where our oppenents have no air force and no real ground equipment to speak of, believe it or not, some of us are surprised that we are still losing lives in a war that we were told we won a long time ago. This "shut up and salute attitude" is the most anti-American sentiment I've witnessed in my young life. Where's Piece-it-Pete with his quotes? There's one about "patriotism" that I think, unfortunately, fits about half the country.

Speaking about propaganda and twisting the truth. Bush declared major battle operations over. Not victory. Get your facts straight.

And get over this shut-up and salute BS, that is one of the biggest lies ever perpetuated. A shallow argument when one has no answers.

Can you deny what Kerry is doing on the cover of his book? Can you?
Read the book and read his testimonial transcripts, they are all available.

And in case you didn't know. Kerry also applied for a deferment. It was denied because he wanted to go study overseas(France). The governement wasn't issuing deferments for that purpose. So Kerry weasled his way into OTS. Then he weasled his way onto a swift boat where he knew he cold lead, instead of take orders. Four months later he was on his way home because of an obscure rule that allowed him to after his 3rd combat injury. You can't tell me that he wasn't looking for any way out and found it. Did yo know that one of his Purple Hearts was denied? He was only sucessful in getting it when his upper command structure changed. Did you know that in his own diary that he admitted to causing his own injury for one of the purple hearts he applied for?

Then with all this great experience he had, including tha infamous Christmas in Cambodia event etched in his memory, he can clearly tell congress of all these autrocities he saw. More BS. The guy is a communist sympathizing socialist who will do and say anything to promote himself.

Can you explain his bizarre voting record between the two gulf wars? Can you? Can you explain how he will build better aliances, when he called the current one the "bribed and coerced"? Can you?

Can you deny his congressional voting record? It goes completely counter to his campaign rehtoric.

-Bruce

dean_martin
10-20-2004, 07:00 AM
Right, and Edwards, using junk science, sued a bunch of obstetricians in his area and caused them to change the way they did deliveries. They were forced, because of Edwards suits, to do only C-Sectons, which are more dangerous to the mother and the baby, increases hospital time and drives up medical costs.


Made him millions, enough to buy three houses. Another man of the people.

-Bruce

What case are you talking about? Are you expecting us to believe that there's not a single natural child birth in North Carolina? The ONLY way to prove medical malpractice is to first establish the standard of care in the medical community for the procedure at issue (standards set by the medical community itself) and second prove that the particular doctor or medical care provider breached that standard. It's a difficult hurdle. I'm not sure of the case or cases you are talking about, but I think it has to do with certain aspects of child delivery causing cerebral palsy. I know that this has become a controversial issue in the medical community, but I believe the controversey arose after this case with new studies. In other words, Edwards' position may have been substantiated in the medical community, i.e., medical literature, at the time of the lawsuit(s). Should the parents give the money back?

As to your second point, would you deprive John Edwards of prospering and living the American Dream because he's a lawyer, or would you rather those privileges be preserved to the Ken Lays, or perhaps there's just a hint of petty jealousy?

Resident Loser
10-20-2004, 07:23 AM
...it WAS Samuel Johnson...but, even on the 'net, if you say something and seem to have a certain amount of conviction about it, you can present practically anything and have folks believe it...and he wasn't second cousin to Adams, but he was all the other things I mentioned.

And my faux-pas wasn't intentional...It was my own blatant error and I apologize for it.

jimHJJ(...a thousand pardons affendi...)

FLZapped
10-20-2004, 07:28 AM
What case are you talking about? Are you expecting us to believe that there's not a single natural child birth in North Carolina? The ONLY way to prove medical malpractice is to first establish the standard of care in the medical community for the procedure at issue (standards set by the medical community itself) and second prove that the particular doctor or medical care provider breached that standard. It's a difficult hurdle. I'm not sure of the case or cases you are talking about, but I think it has to do with certain aspects of child delivery causing cerebral palsy. I know that this has become a controversial issue in the medical community, but I believe the controversey arose after this case with new studies. In other words, Edwards' position may have been substantiated in the medical community, i.e., medical literature, at the time of the lawsuit(s). Should the parents give the money back?

As to your second point, would you deprive John Edwards of prospering and living the American Dream because he's a lawyer, or would you rather those privileges be preserved to the Ken Lays, or perhaps there's just a hint of petty jealousy?


I have no problem with Edwards making an honest living....honest, key word.....

However, he changed the face of medicine in his area. Many doctors left or refused to do child birth and those that remained changed the way they functioned. His actions mad health care for pregnant women in his area almost impossible to get and when they could it was much more expensive. He didn't just sue the doctor, he sued anyone he could name, the hospital, the nurses, the bookeeper....

As far as I'm concerned, he's just a slick talking scumbag. But Edwards can't be held totally accounable here; it's also people who think they are entitled to soemthing because life isn't fair. Well guess what, it never was. No one is born with a warranty agreement attached to their big toe.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C2004 01%5CPOL20040120a.html

http://www.newaus.com.au/041207johnedwards.html

-Bruce

dean_martin
10-20-2004, 07:51 AM
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C2004 01%5CPOL20040120a.html

http://www.newaus.com.au/041207johnedwards.html

-Bruce

Give it up Bruce, both of these "journalists" had to admit that cerebral palsy can be caused by the negligence of the delivering doctor, but they cite studies that show that it's less prevalent than once believed. They both admit that you have to make the determination on a case-by-case basis which is what our civil justice system and our right to trial by jury in civil cases is all about. So, you don't like trial lawyers? I can live with that, but here in America we impanel jurors to decide complex issues that the parties can't agree on themselves. If you don't like the system, then vote for Bush - he'll get rid of it for you.

FLZapped
10-20-2004, 08:29 AM
Give it up Bruce, both of these "journalists" had to admit that cerebral palsy can be caused by the negligence of the delivering doctor, but they cite studies that show that it's less prevalent than once believed. They both admit that you have to make the determination on a case-by-case basis which is what our civil justice system and our right to trial by jury in civil cases is all about. So, you don't like trial lawyers? I can live with that, but here in America we impanel jurors to decide complex issues that the parties can't agree on themselves. If you don't like the system, then vote for Bush - he'll get rid of it for you.

While you fail to admit that it wasn't thought to be very prevelent in the first place.

Trial lawyers have their place, greedy, dishonest one, don't and give the profession a bad name.

As far as the election goes, at least with Bush I know his stance. Kerry has been on all sides of the issues, except maybe abortion, throughout the campaign. Even Imus couldn't figure him out.

-Bruce

piece-it pete
10-20-2004, 08:34 AM
Why is it that everybody here can come up with..... my vote will definitely make a difference. : )

Jeff, congratulations! You've fulfilled the first duty of an American citizen. I'm for everyone voting, even if they're - WRONG!!

:D

It does give a feeling, don't it? And in the face of the last elections' close results there can be no disputing that one vote matters.

I will say again that Kerry saw the same evidence that Bush did and voted FOR the action. Even though there is no WMD found there is also no doubt that Saddam "would've if he could've" - and in the face of diminishing support for sanctions and massive UN corruption it was only a matter of time. That plus many other reasons to take him out. Osama is only important for morale reasons - keep your eye on the big picture.

Kerry stated CLEARLY he has a four year plan to withdraw. Good thing we didn't do this in Japan, or Germany, or South Korea. Remember that the potential payoff from Iraq is huge!! Poll after poll shows at least 60% of Iraqis are afraid we will leave TOO EARLY - if our operation is a success, and so far has been! - WE, the hated crusaders, will be responsible for the freedom of Iraq.

Isn't this something to be proud of?

Don't you think this will help address the "root causes" so glibly used to justify the attacks?

Tax cuts are a proven method of recession relief, and defict spending has been a Democrat recession mantra for many decades, conveniently forgotten now. Remember, a tax dollar is a dollar I can't spend, and only the most ardent socialists believe the gov't spends more efficently that the private sector, particularly in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary. Do you have any experience dealing with the gov't? I fill out tax forms myself every year. What a convoluted mess.

Let's give them our health care, currently the best in the world. THEY'LL make it better.

And Kerry is going to BALANCE the budget?! lol. Look to recent history - his voting record and public statements.

Pete

PS Again, welcome to the club. Viva le Republic!

Oops, that's French :) .

FLZapped
10-20-2004, 08:34 AM
Here, see if you can figure this one out:

I have my view, and my view is my view. I can't tell you in 20 years or whenever, if
someone made a persuasive argument, the world changes. ... So I
don't predict the future. What I tell you is that my position
is what it is." --John Kerry

dean_martin
10-20-2004, 09:01 AM
Speaking about propaganda and twisting the truth. Bush declared major battle operations over. Not victory. Get your facts straight.

And get over this shut-up and salute BS, that is one of the biggest lies ever perpetuated. A shallow argument when one has no answers.

Can you deny what Kerry is doing on the cover of his book? Can you?
Read the book and read his testimonial transcripts, they are all available.

And in case you didn't know. Kerry also applied for a deferment. It was denied because he wanted to go study overseas(France). The governement wasn't issuing deferments for that purpose. So Kerry weasled his way into OTS. Then he weasled his way onto a swift boat where he knew he cold lead, instead of take orders. Four months later he was on his way home because of an obscure rule that allowed him to after his 3rd combat injury. You can't tell me that he wasn't looking for any way out and found it. Did yo know that one of his Purple Hearts was denied? He was only sucessful in getting it when his upper command structure changed. Did you know that in his own diary that he admitted to causing his own injury for one of the purple hearts he applied for?

Then with all this great experience he had, including tha infamous Christmas in Cambodia event etched in his memory, he can clearly tell congress of all these autrocities he saw. More BS. The guy is a communist sympathizing socialist who will do and say anything to promote himself.

Can you explain his bizarre voting record between the two gulf wars? Can you? Can you explain how he will build better aliances, when he called the current one the "bribed and coerced"? Can you?

Can you deny his congressional voting record? It goes completely counter to his campaign rehtoric.

-Bruce

First, I wouldn't call what Kerry did weasling. My father applied for OCS with the Navy just before he got his draft order from the Army where he surely would have been a frontline junior officer in Vietnam. The Navy wanted him so they got him. (No strings pulled - my dad was the first in his family to go to college. His father was a logger. He continued to use oxen into the early '60s. He didn't know anyone of any influence.) Second, although I have no military experience, it has always been my impression that it's crazy to go in as an enlisted man if you have a college degree and can go in as an officer.

If he got his Purple Heart then it may have been initially denied, but it wasn't denied. You don't answer the question WHY. Of course that's a time-tested tactic.

NO, you get over this we can't question our commander-in-chief BS, while there's still a First Amendment. Read it sometime. No answers? To what question? I'm the one asking the questions. What the hell are we doing in Iraq? I mean right now.

Who has John Kerry's personal diary available for viewing? I couldn't pick out which one was Kerry on the cover of that book. I have no desire to relive the Vietnam era. Believe me, you're candidate doesn't want to either. I hope you noticed that I didn't go after Bush for his "service". My impression was that Kerry, in his testimony to Congress, was careful to point out that most of the autrocities he laid out were based on testimonials from other soldiers.

Anyhow, that was a messy time. Kerry playing up his own heroics (you let others do that for you, like he did in Iowa during the primaries), the controversial swift boat ads, etc. are turn-offs for me. I don't even put much stock into bashing Bush's military record. What these people did during the Vietnam era just demonstrates how different people deal with complicated, life or death issues at a particular time. To call these decisions right or wrong is unfair unless you can back it up with an official, contemporaneous finding of guilt. They don't send one to hell and the other to heaven. AND, I don't believe what we've heard so far disqualifies one for President. Some may. Because I'm not defending Kerry's military record, doesn't mean I'm conceding that his service was dishonorable. There's certainly no basis for such a charge. It seems to me that some (and I can't get a grasp on who they are) are pissed about what Kerry did AFTER he returned from Vietnam. To make their case stronger, they've subsequently tried to tarnish his service record. For me, so long as the military was satisfied with his service, I have no problems. I've yet to hear of an official contemporaneous report that criticized Kerry's service. The rest of the mess has more to do with how one feels and is therefore highly subjective.

I can't explain Kerry's vote on the first Gulf War. I think I know that on the second war he was voting to give the President authority to use force with the assumption that the President would follow the UN process to its conclusion, would go in as a last resort and would plan carefully.

After the damage Bush has done, I'm not sure how Kerry is going to build better alliances, but I do know that he's polling much better in traditional European allied countries.

Finally, how do you defend or even taut a 20 year Senate record? If there's something to vote on that you have no interest in you don't have to be there. If there's something to vote on that you are interested in, but you know there are enough votes going your way, you don't have to show up. The people of Massachusetts trusted him. They kept sending him back. He didn't just crawl out from under a rock. Where have all these highly personal attacks been for the last 20 years? What is it about his 20 year record, other than the votes on the 2 Gulf Wars, you don't like?

Hell, man, vote for Bush already! I'll vote for Kerry! The only test is whether we still consider each other Americans afterwards (as opposed to a "communist sympathizing socialist" - what is that anyhow? A socialist who really aspires to be a communist? A left-leaning socialist? Who does a socialist sympathize with these days?)

piece-it pete
10-20-2004, 09:23 AM
FACING SOUTH EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION: "TORT REFORM," LONE STAR STYLE

Under Governor Bush, Texas led the way in making it harder for ordinary
citizens to get their day in court. What can we expect if the
corporate-backed "tort reform" movement succeeds in its dream: spreading
Lone Star justice across America?

By Stephanie Mencimer
SPECIAL TO FACING SOUTH/SOUTHERN EXPOSURE

On June 23, 1999, 24-year-old Juan Martinez and his uncle Jose Inez Rangel
were hydro-testing a ........... To see a full copy of this story and additional information, visit:
www.southernstudies.org

#

Stephanie Mencimer was a finalist for a National Magazine Award for her
reporting in The Washington Monthly on the battle over medical malpractice
and tort reform. She is the author of "The Price of Confession," which
appeared in the Fall/Winter 2003/2004 edition of Southern Exposure. Funding
for this story was provided by the Alicia Patterson Foundation and the Fund
for Investigative Journalism, and will appear in the upcoming edition of
Southern Exposure magazine.

Well I guess we don't need to continue the previous thread!

I was feeling good about this article BUT found that this is another extremely left individual. Articles and books she has authored include biotech food scare books (the legal professions' next target?), how Orrin Hatch helped kids buy drugs, global warming, why SUV drivers are jerks (better tell Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he drives the gigantic Escalade), etc.

I really can't take these tort reform articles to heart until I see supporting evidence from a more middle-of-the-road type individual or organisation. Forgive me for the jab, but there is so far basis in fact: are ALL legal apologists lefties?

Pete

BTW, this just in: Latest Wash. Post poll has Bush gaining a slightly larger lead at 51% to 46%.

Resident Loser
10-20-2004, 09:31 AM
...it all depends on "what your definition of is, is"

jimHJJ(...can't hit a movin' target...)

dean_martin
10-20-2004, 09:53 AM
[QUOTE=piece-it pete]A soldier does his job. That job is NOT decided by him. The minute soldiers are allowed, or worse yet encouraged by fifth column elements here at home to insubordination our effectiveness as a fighting force is finished and we will be put down by our enemies.



Here I am!

Bushs' appearance on the aircraft carrier was twofold - congratulating our boys on a job well done - which it was - and marking the transition from invasion to occupation - which it was.

Ask any graduate of West Point if a war can be won without ground troops. Pushbutton war is a myth loved by folks who cannot face the fact that troops get shot and bombed, or are duped by people, earnestly or deceictfully, telling them it would work.

I do not like it. I ferverently wish it were not so. But those boys are heros whether or not the war is "justified" - they die doing their duty.


Pete,
I agree with you whole-heartedly on the soldier issue. But, the implication (even direct charge) from some is that Kerry did something wrong in his service because they didn't like what he did when he returned. This is simply wrong! The military makes this decision or finding and there has been none. In fact, the military was officially pleased with his service.

In contrast, an example of the insubordination issue I believe you are talking about is the recent reservist unit's decision not to take its convoy into combat areas, apparently contrary to direct orders.

Bush's appearance on the aircraft carrier can only be described as a "transition from invasion to occupation" in hindsight. The administration was running from the word "occupation" at every turn. I believe back then that the correct buzzword was "reconstruction". I'm sure the white house website has the speech. I think I've seen it but haven't reviewed it. I simply know the impression I was left with.

Can a Kerry supporter actually be proud of our troops? That's a funny question, but unfortunately that's the way the issue has been framed. If you're not voting for Bush, if you're questioning Bush's decisions or his administration's decisions, then you're not supporting the troops. However, you can support the troops if you're a Kerry-bashing Democrat, e.g., Zell Miller. In other words, you can be a Democrat and still support the troops so long as you don't vote for Kerry.

dean_martin
10-20-2004, 10:21 AM
Well I guess we don't need to continue the previous thread!

I was feeling good about this article BUT found that this is another extremely left individual. Articles and books she has authored include biotech food scare books (the legal professions' next target?), how Orrin Hatch helped kids buy drugs, global warming, why SUV drivers are jerks (better tell Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he drives the gigantic Escalade), etc.

I really can't take these tort reform articles to heart until I see supporting evidence from a more middle-of-the-road type individual or organisation. Forgive me for the jab, but there is so far basis in fact: are ALL legal apologists lefties?

Pete

BTW, this just in: Latest Wash. Post poll has Bush gaining a slightly larger lead at 51% to 46%.

Dang it, Pete! Here you go. Of course it's not as strong argumentatively as the ones with personal stories (and some biased leanings), but if you want cold hard numbers about the medical malpractice liability "crisis" myth:

President Uses Dubious Statistics on Costs of Malpractice Lawsuits
Two Congressional agencies dispute findings that caps on damage awards produce big savings in medical costs.

January 29, 2004
Modified:January 29, 2004
Summary



The President holds out the prospect of major cost savings if Congress will pass a law limiting what injured patients can collect in lawsuits. He wants a cap of $250,000 on any damages for “pain and suffering” and other non-economic damages. His administration projects savings to the entire economy of between $60 billion and $108 billion per year in health-care costs, including $28 billion or more to federal taxpayers.

But both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings – if any – would be relatively small.


Analysis



In a speech in Little Rock, Arkansas on Jan. 26 the President said, “One of the major cost drivers in the delivery of health care are these junk and frivolous lawsuits.” He said rising malpractice insurance premiums and needless medical procedures ordered up out of fear of lawsuits cost federal taxpayers “at least” $28 billion a year in added costs to government medical programs. Bush’s Department of Health and Human Services claims total savings – public and private – of as much as $108 billion a year.

Those claims rest mainly on a single 1996 study by two Stanford economists who said caps on damage awards could hold down overall medical costs by 5% to 9%. They studied heart patients who were hospitalized, compared costs in states with and without limits on malpractice lawsuits, and then projected their findings to the entire health-care system.

But both the GAO and the CBO now question their sweeping conclusion. When the CBO attempted to duplicate the Stanford economists’ methods for other types of ailments they found found “no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending.”

“In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency, ” the CBO said.

What the President Said

In his Little Rock speech the President blamed baseless lawsuits for a big part of rising medical costs:

One of the major cost drivers in the delivery of health care are these junk and frivolous lawsuits. The risk of frivolous litigation drives doctors -- and hear me out on this -- they drive doctors to prescribe drugs and procedures that may not be necessary, just to avoid lawsuits. That's called the defensive practice of medicine.

. . . . See, lawsuits not only drive up premiums, which drives up the cost to the patient or the employer of the patient, but lawsuits cause docs to practice medicine in an expensive way in order to protect themselves in the courthouse.

The defensive practice of medicine affects the federal budget. The direct cost of liability insurance and the indirect cost from unnecessary medical procedures raise the federal government's health care costs by at least $28 billion a year.

What HHS Said

The President was relying on a paper issued last year by an assistant secretary of HHS which said “The litigation and malpractice insurance problem raids the wallet of every American.”

The HHS report put the cost of malpractice insurance to doctors alone at $6.3 billion in 2002, but said much larger costs come from "defensive medicine":

Defensive medicine that is caused by unlimited and unpredictable liability awards not only increases patients’ risk but it also adds costs. The leading study estimates that limiting unreasonable awards for non-economic damages could reduce health care costs by 5-9% without adversely affecting quality of care. This would save $60-108 billion in health care costs each year. These savings would lower the cost of health insurance and permit an additional 2.4-4.3 million Americans to obtain insurance.

That “leading study” was a 1996 paper by Stanford economists Daniel P. Kessler and Mark McClellan. McClellan – who is both an economist and a physician – served more recently as President Bush’s senior White House policy director for health care, and is now the head of the Food and Drug Administration.

The Kessler-McClellan study is one of the few academic studies that has ever attempted to measure the cost of “defensive medicine” attributable to lawsuits. It did so by examining the cost of treating hospitalized heart patients in states that have caps on damage awards and other restrictions on malpractice suits, and comparing them with the costs of treating similar patients in states without such limits on lawsuits.

The Kessler-McClellan conclusion:

We find that malpractice reforms that directly reduce provider liability pressure lead to reductions of 5 to 9 percent in medical expenditures without substantial effects on mortality or medical complications. We conclude that liability reforms can reduce defensive medical practices.

The Kessler-McClellan study won the 1997 American Economics Association’s award in health economics.

However, a fact not mentioned in the Bush HHS paper is that several other studies of defensive medicine failed to find anywhere near such large costs. A 1990 study by the Harvard University School of Public Health “did not find a strong relationship between the threat of litigation and medical costs,” CBO said. And a 1999 study in the Journal of Health Economics found only tiny savings – less than three-tenths of one percent – when studying the cost of Caesarian sections in states with limits on lawsuits, compared to states without limits.

Finally, a 1994 study by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment found some added costs (under $54 million total) due to defensive radiology in children with head injuries and defensive Caesarian sections in certain women with difficult pregnancies. But the OTA study concluded: “it is impossible in the final analysis to draw any conclusions about the overall extent or cost of defensive medicine.”

What GAO and CBO Said

CBO and GAO both question whether the results Kessler and McClellan observed in hospitalized heart patients can be applied to patients in cancer wards, nursing homes, doctors’ offices, maternity wards and elsewhere.

In 1999 a GAO study said the evidence Kessler and McClellan cited was too narrow to provide a basis for estimating overall costs of defensive medicine:

Because this study was focused on only one condition and on a hospital setting, it cannot be extrapolated to the larger practice of medicine. Given the limited evidence, reliable cost savings estimates cannot be developed.

And on Jan. 8, 2004 , the Congressional Budget Office also said the Kessler-McClellan study wasn’t a valid basis for projecting total costs of defensive medicine.

When CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts.

Worth noting: The nonpartisan CBO is now headed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously was chief economist for President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.


Sources



President George W. Bush, " President Bush Calls for Medical Liability Reform : Remarks by the President on Medical Liability" Baptist Health Medical Center, Little Rock , Arkansas 26 Jan. 2004.

U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services, Office Of The Assistant Secretary For Planning And Evaluation " Confronting the New Health Care Crisis : Improving Health Care Quality and Lowering Costs By Fixing Our Medical Liability System" 24 July 2003.

Daniel Kessler and Mark McClellan, "Do Doctors Practice Defensive Medicine?" Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1996: 353-390.

Perry Beider and Stuart Hagen “ Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice ” Congressional Budget Office 8 Jan. 2004.

US General Accounting Office “ Medical Malpractice : Effect of Varying Laws in the District of Columbia , Maryland and Virginia ” 15 Oct 1999.


U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice , OTA-H--6O2 Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office July 1994.

JeffKnob
10-20-2004, 11:07 AM
Your not taking your thinking on the economy far enough. I'm no economic master but here is a very basic explaination

Taxes are cut. That puts more money in people's pockets. People spend this money on goods and services or invest. Because of increased sales and investment, production goes up. Increased production and sales means companies make more money. Companies making more money can hire more employees, expand, grow. Now that more people and companies are working and making more money they pay more taxes.

That's a very simplistic explanation so maybe someone else can chime in with a more detail explaination.

Another way to look at it is, consumer spending drives the economy. More money in your pocket promotes more cosumer spending.

In terms of your vote, maybe you should "bone-up" on the issues and understand them so you can make a informed decision. That would make a worthwhile difference.

JSE

I am no economist either but I can see one thing. Whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter so much. We have the largest deficit in the history of our country right now and most of it has come from the tax cut given to the wealthy, NOT the war in Iraq. We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow. What do you suggest? We have a fund-raisers like selling candy bars or have all the Senators come out and we can have a car wash? It is ridiculous to say that cutting taxes helps the economy. It might help short term with Consumer spending and Jobs, but it does not help our country's debt. As AMERICANS we should be willing to make sacrifices to help the good of our country, especially in a time of war. I am willing to pay a little more taxes to support our troops. To make sure they are getting the equipment they need AND to have a country that can fund the war as it is happening. That is my way of contributing to the War on Terror and to supporting our troops. By building a stronger America where we are not in debt to other countries and can fund our own battles.

I am very offended by you say that I should've boned up on the facts so that I could've made a better decision. Just because it isn't the decision you would have made doesn't mean it is a bad one. That is very egotistical of you. For your knowledge I have watched all 4 debates and read many articles from many sources. After each debate I have checked all of the facts on both sides to get the whole truth because everybody should know that BOTH candidates swing the truth in their favor. Based on the FACTS I have researched, I feel that I have made a very educated decision. This decision may not be the same as yours but that is what makes America great!

JSE
10-20-2004, 12:05 PM
"I am no economist either but I can see one thing. Whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter so much. We have the largest deficit in the history of our country right now and most of it has come from the tax cut given to the wealthy, NOT the war in Iraq. We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow. What do you suggest? "

The tax cut is not really the reason our deficit is so big and it was given to ever tax payer, not just the wealthy. You might was to do some research on that. The economy was heading downward well before the President took office. And BTW, as FLZapped stated, the surplus was bogus. Since the tax cut, the economy has rebounded very well. Also, there was 9/11. This had a devestating effect on our economy. And, the Iraq war has contibuted to the deficit to some degree. The "fact" is that the economy is improving and doing much better that the liberals would have you believe. I think the President has done an incredible job with the economy based on the challenges we have faced.

"We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow."

Throwing money at government spending will not help the problem. The more you throw at politicians, the more they will spend. Re-read your statement. Does it make sense?

My suggestion? Tax cuts are a start. Cutting spending is another.

"It is ridiculous to say that cutting taxes helps the economy."

Well, your just flat out wrong there. Sorry.

"It might help short term with Consumer spending and Jobs, but it does not help our country's debt. "

How do you think we pay off debt. By bringing in money. Consumer spending leads to a stronger economy which means people are paying more taxes. Get it?

" By building a stronger America where we are not in debt to other countries and can fund our own battles."

Not really sure you understand what makes up our deficit.

"I am very offended by you say that I should've boned up on the facts so that I could've made a better decision. Just because it isn't the decision you would have made doesn't mean it is a bad one. That is very egotistical of you."

I was not disagreeing with your decision on who to vote for. I was disagreeing with the reasoning behind your statement.

"Based on the FACTS I have researched, I feel that I have made a very educated decision. "

Well, you made a decision. Not sure I would call it educated or based on "FACTS".


JSE

JeffKnob
10-20-2004, 12:21 PM
"I am no economist either but I can see one thing. Whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter so much. We have the largest deficit in the history of our country right now and most of it has come from the tax cut given to the wealthy, NOT the war in Iraq. We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow. What do you suggest? "

The tax cut is not really the reason our deficit is so big and it was given to ever tax payer, not just the wealthy. You might was to do some research on that. The economy was heading downward well before the President took office. And BTW, as FLZapped stated, the surplus was bogus. Since the tax cut, the economy has rebounded very well. Also, there was 9/11. This had a devestating effect on our economy. And, the Iraq war has contibuted to the deficit to some degree. The "fact" is that the economy is improving and doing much better that the liberals would have you believe. I think the President has done an incredible job with the economy based on the challenges we have faced.

"We have no way out of the government spending habits other than to raise money somehow."

Throwing money at government spending will not help the problem. The more you throw at politicians, the more they will spend. Re-read your statement. Does it make sense?

My suggestion? Tax cuts are a start. Cutting spending is another.

"It is ridiculous to say that cutting taxes helps the economy."

Well, your just flat out wrong there. Sorry.

"It might help short term with Consumer spending and Jobs, but it does not help our country's debt. "

How do you think we pay off debt. By bringing in money. Consumer spending leads to a stronger economy which means people are paying more taxes. Get it?

" By building a stronger America where we are not in debt to other countries and can fund our own battles."

Not really sure you understand what makes up our deficit.

"I am very offended by you say that I should've boned up on the facts so that I could've made a better decision. Just because it isn't the decision you would have made doesn't mean it is a bad one. That is very egotistical of you."

I was not disagreeing with your decision on who to vote for. I was disagreeing with the reasoning behind your statement.

"Based on the FACTS I have researched, I feel that I have made a very educated decision. "

Well, you made a decision. Not sure I would call it educated or based on "FACTS".


JSE

The surplus was real. At least that is what Bush said himself.

I guess you are just one of those drones that just accepts whatever the president says as the truth. It has been proven many many times that he has lied to all of us. When he is caught he just fabricates another lie to coverup.

Facts are facts. If you have an opinion that contradicts them then that is your opinion. I guess if my thoughts don't fall in line with your opinion then they must be uneducated. Let me please bow to you. I want to be just like you.

JSE
10-20-2004, 12:40 PM
Let me please bow to you. I want to be just like you.

Hey, at least your making one good decision. :D

I'm off to watch my Stros beat the hell out of the Cards.

Later,

JSR

piece-it pete
10-20-2004, 12:49 PM
Pete,
I agree with you whole-heartedly on the soldier issue....... a Kerry-bashing Democrat, e.g., Zell Miller. In other words, you can be a Democrat and still support the troops so long as you don't vote for Kerry.[/QUOTE]

Dean,

Well Kerry's a darn site better than Kusinich!! So we can count our blessings (if that's still allowed!).

I'm afraid I misunderstood the reference to the soldiers, I didn't realise you were discussing Kerry specifically.

In a head-to-head comparison with military service, I believe Kerry did the more honorable (far more honorable) thing originally. That's a fact. I believe he probably fought to the best of his ability. That's more or less guessing. His later actions are deplorable. That's a fact. Pretending to throw his metals, pandering to the anti-war crowd, this is demagogery at its worst.

His service wouldn't be such an issue, except HE made it one, and no wonder - when it comes to National Defense it's all he's got. After 20 years in Congress all he's got is - a history of gutting the Armed Services. And the intelligence services.

And these facts are there for all the world to see, whether or not he'll fight unfettered doesn't matter, he'll be perceived as weaker than Bush because of these facts.

Bush couldn't say "occupation" for perceived bad connotations (like so much not said), "reconstruction" is either code or the new word, take your pick. We never believed (or shouldn't have believed) the terrorists would roll over because we took out the government. Quite the contrary, it's amazing we've done so well. And anyone who has any knowledge of military actions KNOWS we've done well, VERY well, dispute is useless :) . True.

I won't say Kerry supporters are un-American. I'll let others do it.

Just kidding! Couldn't resist.

Cons see libs as destroying America. Libs see cons as doing the same thing. Who's right? It'll sound unimaginative, but quite frankly *right now* we need STRENGTH in foreign policy, like we haven't needed since the end of the cold war. We are GOING to take casualties in this war, and war it is. Win through covert ops? Who're these people kidding? Yep, Syria's going to say, "Come on in, shoot our citizens! Have at it!" Not going to happen. Well, it'll happen (it BETTER be happening!) but it's not going to win this fight, it's not going to take the place of ground troops shooting people and being shot at.

We show weakness, perceived or real, and more of our boys will die needlessly. We need to be respected, and strength will EARN it, not loved, love/kindness/softness will not stop these hateful people. Let them whine and complain. We've got a job to do, to protect ourselves.

Stated clearly: I do not believe you or most of your misguided cohorts :D are neccessarily un-American or anti-soldier by definition. I just believe you are wrong.

Pete

piece-it pete
10-20-2004, 01:06 PM
Dang it, Pete! Here you go.......... Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice , OTA-H--6O2 Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office July 1994.

Hey, that's great!

I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Lots going on in this thread: And in this corner....

lol. Have a great evening!

Pete

PS I can't believe I'm saying this, but: Go Red Socks!!

dean_martin
10-20-2004, 01:46 PM
Stated clearly: I do not believe you or most of your misguided cohorts :D are neccessarily un-American or anti-soldier by definition. I just believe you are wrong.

Pete


Thanks, Pete. I feel much better about myself and the fact that I may still be accepted in society come Nov.3 (or whenever the recounts are done). BTW, have you seen the new NBC/WSJ poll. It has Bush at 48%, Kerry at 46% and Nader at 2% among registered voters. It has them tied at 48% among likely voters. The latest Zogby/Reuters has them knotted at 46% each. Kerry has actually gained ground since the weekend!

I don't know who the dems could have put up to unseat a President during war time, because there is a substantial block of voters who are afraid to make the switch. OTOH, there are slightly more Bush skeptics out there many of whom would make the switch if the dems had found the right guy. I refuse to accept the notion that a change in leadership in and of itself sends the wrong message. If that were the case, then why not just put off elections until this whole thing is over? Wait, then we might send the message that we're afraid! Anyway, on an interesting side note, one prediction I saw had the election going to the House of Reps. Do you think the House would go with the popular vote regardless of which candidate got the popular vote?

dean_martin
10-20-2004, 02:24 PM
While you fail to admit that it wasn't thought to be very prevelent in the first place.

Trial lawyers have their place, greedy, dishonest one, don't and give the profession a bad name.

As far as the election goes, at least with Bush I know his stance. Kerry has been on all sides of the issues, except maybe abortion, throughout the campaign. Even Imus couldn't figure him out.

-Bruce

OK, Bruce you got me. There are some things I'll never admit! But, Kerry's stance on the latest invasion of Iraq hasn't changed as the article from www.factcheck.org below shows. A masterful tactical job is being done by the Republican Machine. In another thread, I posted an article about Karl Rove's tactics in Texas and my home state of Alabama. The "whisper" campaigns and self-attacks were chilling!

I will admit, however, that I did not know that there was a vote on the 87billion for which Kerry actually voted. However, that version was conditioned on rolling back some of the tax cuts - of course, it failed. Could this have been what Kerry meant when he said he actually voted for it before voting against it on the straight up or down vote? I actually had questions about that one myself. The vote against the 87billion was a boneheaded protest vote, but Kerry (and everybody else) obviously knew that it would pass.

I've also had some time to think about the differences between the vote to authorize the President to use force if necessary and the vote to go into Iraq back in the early 90's. I think you can say there is a difference IF the early 90's vote was a vote on a declaration of war as defined in the Constitution. (Only Congress has the power to delare war.) Why did Kerry vote no back then? I don't know. He hasn't explained that or his explanation hasn't been very publicized. But, authorizing the use of force by the President and declaring war are 2 different things. Personally, I thought getting Saddam out of Kuwait was the right thing to do.

However, I think the "Kerry as flip-flopper" has been greatly exaggerated. People may be realizing that now. One of his faults is that he can't state his position in a 30 sec. soundbyte. I will admit that Kerry (like Bush) has communication problems.

Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq
Selective use of Kerry's own words makes him look inconsistent on Iraq. A closer look gives a different picture.

September 27, 2004
Modified: September 28, 2004
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Summary



Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support. But a Bush ad released Sept. 27 takes many of Kerry's words out of context to make him appear to be alternately praising the war and condemning it.

Here we present this highly misleading ad, along with what Kerry actually said, in full context.


Analysis



This ad is the most egregious example so far in the 2004 campaign of using edited quotes in a way that changes their meaning and misleads voters.

Bush-Cheney '04

"Searching:"

Bush: I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message.

Kerry: It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision I supported him.

Kerry: I don't believe the President took us to war as he should have.

Kerry: The winning of the war was brilliant.

Kerry: It's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Kerry: I have always said we may yet even find weapons of mass destruction.

Kerry: I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.

(Graphic: How can John Kerry protect us . . .when he doesn't even know where he stands?)

"Right Decision"

Kerry is shown saying it was "the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein." What's left out is that he prefaced that by saying Bush should have made greater use of diplomacy to accomplish that.

The quote is from May 3, 2003, at the first debate among Democratic presidential contenders, barely three weeks after the fall of Baghdad. The question was from ABC's George Stephanopoulos:

Q: And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

Kerry: George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

(Note: We have added the emphasis in these and the following quotes to draw attention to the context left out by the Bush ad.)

"As he should have"

The full "right decision" quote is actually quite consistent with the next Kerry quote, "I don't believe the President took us to war as he should have," which is from an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball" program Jan. 6, 2004:

Q: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

Kerry: I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris.

Q: Let me...

Kerry: Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was, and we should have done it right.

"Winning of the war was brilliant"

When Kerry said "the winning of the war was brilliant" he wasn't praising Bush for waging the war, he was praising the military for the way they accomplished the mission. He also repeated his criticism of Bush for failing to better plan for what came next. This was also on "Hardball," May 19:

Q: All this terrorism. If you were president, how would you stop it?

Kerry: Well, it's going to take some time to stop it, Chris, but we have an enormous amount of cooperation to build one other countries. I think the administration is not done enough of the hard work of diplomacy, reaching out to nations, building the kind of support network.

I think they clearly have dropped the ball with respect to the first month in the after -- winning the war. That winning of the war was brilliant and superb, and we all applaud our troops for doing what they did, but you've got to have the capacity to provide law and order on the streets and to provide the fundamentally services, and I believe American troops will be safer and America will pay less money if we have a broader coalition involved in that, including the United Nations.

"Wrong war, wrong place"

When Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" he was once again criticizing Bush for failing to get more international support before invading Iraq. He criticized Bush for what he called a "phony coalition" of allies:

Kerry (Sept 6, 2004): You've got about 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties, and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war . . . It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Earlier that same day at another campaign appearance he repeated pretty much what he's said all along:

Kerry (Sept 6, 2004): "I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq. I said this from the beginning of the debate to the walk up to the war. I said, 'Mr. President, don't rush to war, take the time to build a legitimate coalition and have a plan to win the peace ."

We May Find WMDs

Nine months of fruitless searching have gone by since Kerry said on Dec. 14, 2003 that weapons of mass destruction might yet be found in Iraq. But what's most misleading about the Bush ad's editing is that it takes that remark out of a long-winded -- but still consistent -- explanation of Kerry's overall position on Iraq:

The exchange was on Fox News Sunday, with host Chris Wallace:

Q: But isn't it, in a realistic political sense going to be a much harder case to make to voters when you have that extraordinary mug shot of Saddam Hussein...looking like he's been dragged into a police line-up?

Kerry: Absolutely not, because I voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. I knew we had to hold him accountable. There's never been a doubt about that. But I also know that if we had done this with a sufficient number of troops, if we had done this in a globalized way, if we had brought more people to the table, we might have caught Saddam Hussein sooner. We might have had less loss of life. We would be in a stronger position today with respect to what we're doing.

Look, again, I repeat, Chris, I have always said we may yet even find weapons of mass destruction. I don't know the answer to that. We will still have to do the job of rebuilding Iraq and resolving the problem between Shias and Sunnis and Kurds. There are still difficult steps ahead of us.

The question that Americans want to know is, what is the best way to proceed? Not what is the most lonely and single-track ideological way to proceed. I believe the best way to proceed is to bring other countries to the table, get some of our troops out of the target, begin to share the burden.


The $87 Billion

The final quote is the one in which the Bush ad takes its best shot. Kerry not only said it, he did it. He voted for an alternative resolution that would have approved $87 billion in emergency funds for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was conditioned on repealing much of Bush's tax cuts, and it failed 57-42. On the key, up-or-down vote on the $87 billion itself Kerry was only one of 12 senators in opposition, along with the man who later become his running mate, Sen. John Edwards.

It's not only Bush who criticizes Kerry's inconsistency on that vote. Rival Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, a senator who also had voted to give Bush authority to use force in Iraq, said: "I don't know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say they supported the war but then opposed the funding for the troops who went to fight the war that the resolution that they supported authorized." Lieberman spoke at a candidate debate in Detroit Oct. 26, 2003.

Another Democratic rival who criticized Kerry for that vote was Rep. Dick Gephardt, who said beforehand that he would support the $87 billion "because it is the only responsible course of action. We must not send an ambiguous message to our troops, and we must not send an uncertain message to our friends and enemies in Iraq."

But aside from the $87 billion matter, this Bush ad is a textbook example of how to mislead voters through selective editing.


Sources



"Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate Sponsored by ABC News," Federal News Service, 3 May 2003.

"Interview with John Kerry," MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews, 6 Jan 2004.

"Interview with John Kerry," MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews, 19 May 2004.

Lois Romano and Paul Farhi, "Kerry Attacks Bush on Handling of Iraq," The Washington Post 7 Sep 2004: A8.

Calvin Woodward, "Kerry Slams 'Wrong War in the Wrong Place,'" The Associated Press , 6 Sep 2004.

Fox News Sunday, "Interview with John Kerry," 14 December 2003.

Adam Nagourney and Diane Cardwell, "Democrats in Debate Clash Over Iraq War," New York Times, 27 Oct 2003: A1.

Joe Klein, "Profiles in Convenience," Time magazine, 19 Oct 2003.


View Bush Ad "Searching"


FactCheck.org will send each new FactCheck and Special Report directly to your mailbox (disable pop-up blocker first).
Sign Up Now



Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center

dean_martin
10-20-2004, 02:58 PM
Bush couldn't say "occupation" for perceived bad connotations (like so much not said), "reconstruction" is either code or the new word, take your pick. We never believed (or shouldn't have believed) the terrorists would roll over because we took out the government. Quite the contrary, it's amazing we've done so well. And anyone who has any knowledge of military actions KNOWS we've done well, VERY well, dispute is useless :) . True.

Pete

I agree, Pete, Bush still can't say "occupation" and he has trouble saying "reconstruction".

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

On a serious note, yes we kicked butt and I'm proud of our military for their outstanding execution, especially in light of the fact that many neighboring countries wouldn't allow us to use more convenient mission launching sites. But, we didn't go into Iraq to go after terrorists did we? That's not what we were told. (It was alluded to though.) I'm waiting for the day that the administration tells us that the grand plan was to go into Iraq for the purpose of luring terrorists in so that we can kill them. I believe that is what has happened whether we planned for it or not. After Saddam's fall and the success of the initial invasion we continued to fight Saddam loyalists. Now, we're fighting a different enemy (terrorists) on the same battle field and I don't believe this new enemy was even there to begin with. Could this have been the plan all along? Or, am I way off base here? If it was the plan, then we need to stop worrying about elections and no-fight zones and clean that place out. Then and only then will the Iraqis get on the road to peace and freedom. If we're keeping up some kind of charade by promising elections and encouraging talks between Iraqi leaders and so-called insurgent leaders, then the job may never get done.

roster19
10-20-2004, 07:38 PM
I'm voting for Ralph Nadder, because no one ever picks the little guy. Even if my vote will pretty much not count since he's a real small party.

piece-it pete
10-21-2004, 08:14 AM
Dang it, Pete! Here you go. Of course it's not as strong argumentatively as the ones with ....... Assessment, Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice , OTA-H--6O2 Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office July 1994.

This seems more..... something, can't think of the word. It sounds like they're basically saying it doesn't matter, or makes little difference. I sure wish a medical Doctor would chip in.

It is obvious that there hasn't been a definitive, overall study on the matter - they can't even agree among themselves!

I have to admit, I bring prejudice to this argument, based on all things The Little Rascals.

You might have seen the episode, where they sell insurance. The thing that sticks in my mind, and upon research was the way insurance generally worked at the time, that if you cut a finger you got x amount, black eye x amount, etc, all off a published list. The real insurance cos at the time had published payouts too, like lose an arm, x amount, etc.

This makes sense to me as someone who figures costs and does quotes every day. How on earth can I quote a competitive price if I don't know, or am unsure, what my real cost will be?

I'll HAVE to build in some cushion room, and will err on the expensive side 99% of the time. If I'm wrong I will at best lost the order and at worst lose the company, and all employees lose their jobs. Perhaps to China or India.

This isn't 100% applicable to tort reform. Still, a drag on the economy is a drag on the economy, and will cost both jobs and income. I see from the previous articles you've posted there are some issues with the tort bills passed. Particularly what I don't like is the punitive damages examples. Couldn't these be addressed seperately?

Pete

dean_martin
10-21-2004, 09:12 AM
This seems more..... something, can't think of the word. It sounds like they're basically saying it doesn't matter, or makes little difference. I sure wish a medical Doctor would chip in.

It is obvious that there hasn't been a definitive, overall study on the matter - they can't even agree among themselves!

I have to admit, I bring prejudice to this argument, based on all things The Little Rascals.

You might have seen the episode, where they sell insurance. The thing that sticks in my mind, and upon research was the way insurance generally worked at the time, that if you cut a finger you got x amount, black eye x amount, etc, all off a published list. The real insurance cos at the time had published payouts too, like lose an arm, x amount, etc.

This makes sense to me as someone who figures costs and does quotes every day. How on earth can I quote a competitive price if I don't know, or am unsure, what my real cost will be?

I'll HAVE to build in some cushion room, and will err on the expensive side 99% of the time. If I'm wrong I will at best lost the order and at worst lose the company, and all employees lose their jobs. Perhaps to China or India.

This isn't 100% applicable to tort reform. Still, a drag on the economy is a drag on the economy, and will cost both jobs and income. I see from the previous articles you've posted there are some issues with the tort bills passed. Particularly what I don't like is the punitive damages examples. Couldn't these be addressed seperately?

Pete

The GBO study did have a doctor on board. My conclusion, supported by many anecdotals, experiences, and some studies such as the studies cited finding no real correlation between the cost of medicine and litigation and even those that are inconclusive, is that the so-called problem is greatly exaggerated. Why limit a constitutional right if you can't back up the limitations? Even if it is drag on the economy because it accounts for less than 1% of the total cost of medicine, why would we target this at the expense of limiting fundamental rights. Admittedly, the 7th Amendment has not been held to apply to the States through the 14th (known as the incorporation doctrine), but many state constitutions grant the right to trial by jury in civil cases. But, Pres. Bush has just formally proposed his caps on med mal liability from the federal level taking that decision away from the states. This, if passed, may bring the 7th Amend. directly into play and would make for an interesting supreme court case.

Most states, after the first wave of tort reform hit in the 1980's for the same stated reasons (premiums too high - but studies from various state insurance regulators show they never went down), provide for caps on punitive damages that take the form of multiples of compensatory damages, i.e., 3 x compensatories or 500K-2million, whichever is greater. Often included is a provision that factors in the net worth of the particular defendant, generally a business, so a judgment does not put the defendant out of business. The net worth is determined after verdict so that the wealth of the defendant does not become an issue before the jury. (You've probably noticed I haven't mentioned insurance. In my state, the jury cannot be told that the defendant has insurance, but it may play a role in the post-verdict determinations.)

The whole premise of instituting caps, like many other political plans, is backward. The cases that make it to a jury in which the jury renders a verdict for the plaintiff obviously have merit. Thus, caps most severely effect the meritorious cases and not the frivolous ones that over 90% of the time get tossed out before making it to trial.

I'm anti-cap, but I can live with caps on punitives because they are intended to punish and deter conduct done with a concsious disregard for the health and safety of others, or, in some instnaces, with the purpose of defrauding, and perhaps there is some unfairness in not knowing ahead of time what your punishment will be. I don't totally agree with this argument but it's often made. I think it's appropriate for criminal cases in which someone's liberty or life is at risk.

What I find extremely harsh is caps on non-economic damages such as those for pain and suffering and mental anguish. When you cap these damages, then the person like the stay-at-home mom, a minor, or a retiree, is unfairly treated. Not only that, the whole concept shows a distrust for citizens. In other words, it says that citizens are too stupid to put a number on these categories of damages. In my experience, when jurors are given this task they take it very seriously (this used to surprise me) and perform their tasks diligently.

piece-it pete
10-21-2004, 11:29 AM
Thanks, Pete. I feel much better about myself and the fact that I may still be accepted in society come Nov.3 (or whenever the recounts are done). BTW, have you seen the new NBC/WSJ poll. It has Bush at 48%, Kerry at 46% and Nader at 2% among registered voters. It has them tied at 48% among likely voters. The latest Zogby/Reuters has them knotted at 46% each. Kerry has actually gained ground since the weekend!

I don't know who the dems could have put up to unseat a President during war time, because there is a substantial block of voters who are afraid to make the switch. OTOH, there are slightly more Bush skeptics out there many of whom would make the switch if the dems had found the right guy. I refuse to accept the notion that a change in leadership in and of itself sends the wrong message. If that were the case, then why not just put off elections until this whole thing is over? Wait, then we might send the message that we're afraid! Anyway, on an interesting side note, one prediction I saw had the election going to the House of Reps. Do you think the House would go with the popular vote regardless of which candidate got the popular vote?

No way, the House is GOP so if that happens Bush will win. It would be interesting to see, though, and maybe we'll live to see the day the Supreme Court finds the Constitution unConstitutional!

It occurred to me last night that these polls mean nothing, really, we need state-by-state polls to get a feel for the election. The WSJ says today WISCONSIN might be the deciding state with 10 electoral votes. Hear that Jeff? You may have decided the next president!

Though I hope not! :D

Tim, I'm glad you feel validated lol. These discussions can get so heated we tend to forget that for the most part we all mean well.

It's tough for the Dems in wartime now. With their fringe groups being virulently anti-war period, and those groups get a lot of tv airtime, they will be perceived as weak that way, right or wrong. But run Kerry?! He was the LEADER of those groups for YEARS! Arrrgh it gets to me. If they would've found the right person they would've beat Bush handily IMO. But who? Dean? GEPHART? Maybe Moynihan, seriously, he's well respected. Wait, I've got to mention Kusinich again (he's my congressman!). Hillary, who I think short changed your party for personal gain - and if Kerry wins will have to wait a loooong time in politicians' years to run. Traficant lol. OK I'm getting a bit silly with that one. Still, the thought of that bad-wigged crook running a national campaign cracks me up in a big way.

Of course the incumbent will say not to change horses in midstream. FDR played this card very well. There is some logic in this. All kinds of crap has been started worldwide since 9-11, most of which I'm sure we don't know about. It makes sense to allow it to play out, because 1) the incumbent has been involved for 4 years already - that is a long time, quite a leg up, 2) mixed signals ARE bad, and 3) none of the candidates, including Bush, are stupid or evil, give his plan a chance to come to fruition. Many of the players in our current drama worldwide have at least a passing familiarity with Bush, they have an idea where he stands. Even a country like France, posing on the world stage, KNOWS Bush will fight. He's proved it. This is invaluable! No wonder Iran and N Korea is having a sanitary problem with their BVDs' - they should. Even with nukes they know they're no match for us, and it scares them that Bush MIGHT mop them up. This makes it less likely we'll actually have to fight - peace through strength. That with deficit spending took out the mighty USSR, these little wanna-be Stalinist or Mohammadist outfits don't stand a chance.

We will have an election, of course, haven't missed one yet!


I agree, Pete, Bush still can't say "occupation" and he has trouble saying "reconstruction".

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

On a serious note, yes we kicked butt and I'm proud of our military for their outstanding execution, especially in light of the fact that many neighboring countries wouldn't allow us to use more convenient mission launching sites. But, we didn't go into Iraq to go after terrorists did we? That's not what we were told. (It was alluded to though.) I'm waiting for the day that the administration tells us that the grand plan was to go into Iraq for the purpose of luring terrorists in so that we can kill them. I believe that is what has happened whether we planned for it or not. After Saddam's fall and the success of the initial invasion we continued to fight Saddam loyalists. Now, we're fighting a different enemy (terrorists) on the same battle field and I don't believe this new enemy was even there to begin with. Could this have been the plan all along? Or, am I way off base here? If it was the plan, then we need to stop worrying about elections and no-fight zones and clean that place out. Then and only then will the Iraqis get on the road to peace and freedom. If we're keeping up some kind of charade by promising elections and encouraging talks between Iraqi leaders and so-called insurgent leaders, then the job may never get done.

lol Bush can be funny! But sometimes I cringe - mightily.

As far as going into Iraq after terrorists, weelllll, yes and no. The reason that WMD was a problem there and not with, say, Israel, is we didn't trust Saddam either to not use them or keep them out of the wrong hands.

If it works out that we kill al-Qaida over there, that works for me. Keep them busy, and DEAD. We have a very effective fighting force, far better than most realize. Our boys are very lethal.

"If it was the plan, then we need to stop worrying about elections and no-fight zones and clean that place out." Not too long ago I believed the same thing. What's happening is, we're letting the Iraqis exercise sovereignity! THEY are the ones persuing this course.

This to me is amazing. And so quickly. The rest of the world can kiss my - foot. We put our money where our mouth is, we have NO INTENTION of ruling Iraq and we're proving it. They are calling the shots, not us. Bloodshed, they're used to, freedom they are not. THIS will win the battle for "hearts & minds" in the Arab world.

Pete

FLZapped
10-21-2004, 03:54 PM
My final point on this whole mess:

Perhaps the most instructive question that can be asked regarding the
upcoming presidential election is this: Given the chance, would Saddam
Hussein, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il, Mohammad
Khatami, Moammar al-Ghadafi and Hu Jingtao vote for
A) George Bush, or
B) John Kerry?

How would Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Kofi Annan
vote?

-Bruce

JSE
10-21-2004, 07:57 PM
My final point on this whole mess:

Perhaps the most instructive question that can be asked regarding the
upcoming presidential election is this: Given the chance, would Saddam
Hussein, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il, Mohammad
Khatami, Moammar al-Ghadafi and Hu Jingtao vote for
A) George Bush, or
B) John Kerry?

How would Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Kofi Annan
vote?

-Bruce


And the award for best spelling goes to Zapped. Dang man, it would have taken me half an hour just to make sure I spelled all those names correctly. Of course I am just assuming you got them right. :D

JSE

jeskibuff
10-21-2004, 08:08 PM
Bush declared major battle operations over. Not victory. Get your facts straight.Precisely. Those men had accomplished their mission. If the entire war was over as the liberals would want us to believe, why were troops still over in Iraq? What a simpleminded piece of propaganda the Democrats tried to glean from that incident!


Kerry also applied for a deferment. It was denied because he wanted to go study overseas(France). The governement wasn't issuing deferments for that purpose. So Kerry weasled his way into OTS. Then he weasled his way onto a swift boat where he knew he cold lead, instead of take orders. Four months later he was on his way home because of an obscure rule that allowed him to after his 3rd combat injury. You can't tell me that he wasn't looking for any way out and found it.Swift Boats at the time were known to be one of the safest places to be if you had to be in Vietnam. They patrolled the coastal areas. Kerry had no problem with that strategy, therefore he volunteered for it rather than be drafted into a place where he would face greater danger. But military strategists decided to change their tactics and to use them to patrol inland rivers. That's when Kerry started getting all bent out of shape because it put him in much greater danger. Kerry's service in Vietnam reeks of cowardly incident after cowardly incident.

Several crafts would patrol together and when a mine blew up one of the boats, Kerry gunned his boat and high-tailed it out of the area. The other boats went to rescue the crew of the crippled boat. Once Kerry saw that it was safe, he turned his boat around and went back to the scene. There are many such incidents. One of the people who support him, Jim Rassman, was knocked overboard and was in the water at the time. He heard gunfire, so his account of the incident refers to enemy gunfire. When the mine exploded, the Swiftees thought they were being ambushed, so laid down fire into the shores. None of their boats had any damage recorded from enemy fire and Kerry's request for a Purple Heart was initially turned down because everybody knew there was no enemy fire. Kerry went around the system to get a Purple Heart for his wound which by his own admission came from an incident earlier in the day where he threw a grenade into a rice bin and the exploding shapnel and rice gave him some superficial wounds, treated with Bactarin and bandaids.

He was such a whiner and complainer once they were on the more dangerous patrols that nobody wanted him around and considered him reckless and a danger to them. It was actually his fellow vets that wanted him to take advantage of the 3 Purple Owie awards to get him away from them. They felt their lives were in jeopardy with Kerry around.

If the Swiftees are lying, all Kerry has to do is sign a form 180 to release his military records. That simple act would prove they were lying. Yet, he refuses to do so. Ask yourself...why is he so afraid of releasing records if he is telling the truth?


After the damage Bush has done, I'm not sure how Kerry is going to build better alliances, but I do know that he's polling much better in traditional European allied countries.When you're in the military, you depend on your fellow soldiers and you don't really care if they're black, white, athiest, Buddhist, etc. You know there's a mutual reliance on each other, thus a "Band Of Brothers" is formed. Yet there are 250-some Swift Boat vets who believe that Kerry is unfit to serve and a handful (all paid campaign workers) who support him. That's the first sign that Kerry doesn't have what it takes to form a coalition. Then you've got the recent incidents where Kerry calls the leader of Iraq a liar. Kerry insults the Italians, saying that "even the Italian army" could've beaten the Iraqis. That's an insult to the Italians and to our own troops. Germany and France have already stated that they will not participate in the Iraqi effort, no matter who is president. It looks like Kerry is just throwing out empty promises, doesn't it? Kerry clearly hasn't the right stuff to form alliances or coalitions. But he wants you to believe that he can do it. :rolleyes:


...the mass media trying to spin this race...The email makes it sound like the media has got a conservative bias to it. Just look at the facts. We've had countless anti-Bush books and movies published. You see Kitty Kelley and Michael Mooron on The Today Show, The Tonight Show, 60 Minutes, etc. You have the worst media scandal ever with Rathergate, trying to poison the election with obviously fraudulent documents. You have an internal ABC memo published which shows how they were trying to spin their coverage to Kerry's advantage.

Then you have the Swift Boat Veterans who have been BEGGING to be on those same shows. Has anyone seen them, besides in their own ads? Sinclair Broadcasting Group was set to broadcast "Stolen Honor" http://www.stolenhonor.com but Dimocrats dragged their stock prices down 17% and issued other threats, so they finally caved to the pressure.

There are two movies out to counter Fahrenheit 9/11, called FahrenHYPE 9/11 and Celsius 41.11. Have you seen these on your local theatre marquees? A private citizen just paid $104,656 for a full page ad in the Washington Post just to be heard. See http://www.whatiam.net If anything, there IS a mass media effort to spin this race, but it's a liberal spin, not a conservative one.


Well considering we never found WMD, and we had people on the ground actively searching, and G.W didn't have the patience to wait until they were completed, an arguement can be made that we rushed to war.And that argument would be without merit. Saddam was supposed to comply with inspectors, as per his terms of surrender. He chose to obfuscate and play shell games. We had TWELVE years of patience. That's certainly no "rush to war".


Had you have been paying close attention, you would have found that we had absolutely NO support in the UN for this kinda of move.Had you been paying close attention, you might have noticed how Syria is on the Human Rights Commission and the U.S. is not! Doesn't that say anything to you? Syria?? A haven for terrorism and VIOLATION of human rights? The U.N. has lost its credibility. The oil-for-food scandal is just one more indication that the U.N. has turned into a corrupt organization which has devalued to the point of worthlessness.


Had Hans Blix had the oportunity to complete his search, he could have concluded that no WMD can be found, eleminated the chance that troops would be deployed, and 1,000+ would still be alive, and 5,000+ would not be maimed or injured. We would also have 200 billion dollars more in our coffers, and countless Iraqi people still alive.Wishful thinking on your part. The inspections team had YEARS to do their job. They could reach NO such conclusion as long as Saddam kept up the shell game. With the mass graves found in Iraq, how could you possibly say that more Iraqis would be alive if we stayed out of there? Saddam murdered HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent people. We're killing the Iraqis who are shooting at us!


During his (Bush's) watch, the desparity between the wealthy and the poor has grown wider.That also happened during the Clinton administration. Were you complaining then?


This country is divided in a way unheard of in it's history, and his Presidency is directly responsible for thatNope. Sorry. The Dimocrats are responsible for that. Before Bush even took the oath of office, he was being ripped apart by Dimocrats. They even blamed him for the downswing in the economy WHILE CLINTON WAS STILL PRESIDENT. They never gave Bush a fair shake and no matter WHAT Bush would do, they would criticize it. We get attacked on 9/11, and Dimocrats complained that Bush sat for a whole 7 minutes when first notified of it. But when he takes decisive action, he gets criticized. Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't. There are MANY instances of that kind of unfair treatment of Bush.


States that had a dearth of manufacturing jobs, ask them how they benefitted from his tax cut to the wealthy.Our global economy is changing and there's not a thing that Kerry, Bush or ANYONE can do about it. Keeping some industries alive is like demanding that companies who produced slide rules be kept afloat. That's nonsense and you know it. The "tax cut to the wealthy" is just another Dimocrat talking point. The cut was even across the board. Poorer people didn't get as much back BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PAY AS MUCH INTO THE SYSTEM. It's that simple.


People say that Kerry is going to raise our taxes. I don't think he will.More wishful thinking on your part. Kerry's record speaks volumes. He IS the most liberal Senate member, based on his record. To "think that he will not raise taxes" when he promises everything under the sun is totally naive.


Bush acts like a strong leader but if you don't have the brainpower to make good decisions you are no longer a good leader.Bush has made good, strong CONSISTENT decisions which make total sense. He does things that aren't politically expedient for him. He has made tough decisions that put his re-election at risk. He does not lead by opinion poll, but does what he feels is the RIGHT THING to do. That's not just a good leader, that's an EXCELLENT leader!


We saw in the first debate how much of a retard he is.Read this article http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/greenberg101504.asp Here's an excerpt:

Our dyslexic president made his usual goofs in the second presidential debate and heavyweight match, but by now no one really notices. It's as if the country had learned to translate him.
.
Listening to this president is like tuning a radio to not quite the right frequency.
.
Between the president's speech and my hearing, there was a lot lost in the translation. And yet no one has any problem understanding exactly where George W. Bush stands.
.
His words blur, but his meaning is damned well clear. Some of us may disagree with him, even strongly, but we're never in doubt about where he's coming from, and where he's absolutely determined to go.
.
John Kerry's diction, on the other hand, is perfectly clear. It's a textbook example of New England Upper Class so well modulated it's almost neutral. Each word is distinct. His delivery is smooth, his sound sincere. It's only his meaning that's a total blur, full of reservations, equivocations, and explanations that never really explain . . . .


Taxes are cut. That puts more money in people's pockets. People spend this money on goods and services or invest. Because of increased sales and investment, production goes up. Increased production and sales means companies make more money. Companies making more money can hire more employees, expand, grow. Now that more people and companies are working and making more money they pay more taxes.

That's a very simplistic explanation so maybe someone else can chime in with a more detail explaination.How about we look at it from the opposite angle? Years ago, California liberals decided to load up corporations with all sorts of taxes and regulations. More taxation means more money in the coffers, right? What HAPPENED was that it became economically undesireable for many companies to function in California, so they moved their businesses to more friendly states, like Nevada. The loss of those businesses in California meant less tax collected both from the corporations and the employees that worked for them. So, more taxation resulted in less tax income. Get it?
That's how liberal destruction works. Then they try to blame the loss of jobs on Republicans.

JSE
10-21-2004, 08:43 PM
How about we look at it from the opposite angle? Years ago, California liberals decided to load up corporations with all sorts of taxes and regulations. More taxation means more money in the coffers, right? What HAPPENED was that it became economically undesireable for many companies to function in California, so they moved their businesses to more friendly states, like Nevada. The loss of those businesses in California meant less tax collected both from the corporations and the employees that worked for them. So, more taxation resulted in less tax income. Get it?
That's how liberal destruction works. Then they try to blame the loss of jobs on Republicans.

Good example. Hmmm, maybe that's part of the reason we see so much outsourcing? Hmmm? Kerry wants to increase taxes on corporations. That makes sense. :confused: Let's force our domestic companies to move out of the country by making the tax burden so huge they can't stay in business. But that's against the principles of capitalism. :confused: Oh that's right, Kerry's a socialists. I forgot. :D

One thing is for sure, many people don't understand the difference between paying more taxes because you can and paying more taxes because you are forced to by law.

JSE

jeskibuff
10-22-2004, 06:12 AM
Good example. Hmmm, maybe that's part of the reason we see so much outsourcing? Hmmm? Kerry wants to increase taxes on corporations. That makes sense. :confused: Let's force our domestic companies to move out of the country by making the tax burden so huge they can't stay in business

Precisely.

Dimocrats' eyes glazed over when Kerry spoke of upping the minimum wage to $7. That pleases people who believe they are owed a better wage despite their lack of skill and/or education. But any company must turn a profit in order to stay in business, so if their labor costs go up they'll look to cut costs wherever they can in order to keep their product(s) price competitive.

If that means finding cheaper labor abroad who will do the same job, that means more Americans lose their jobs because of the minimum wage hike.

That means more people on the welfare rolls and on food stamps etc., living off the government which gets money to pay for those programs from working peoples' taxes.

So Kerry's utopia of higher wages for unskilled labor actually results in fewer jobs, higher taxes and higher costs. But it tempts the fools who will cast their vote for him.

Things have changed with our global economy and if we intend to remain competitive, we have to denounce the free giveaway tactics that con artists like John Kerry will use.

Incidentally, I know it's not necessary to apologize to you for the way I worded my response earlier, but I just want to make things clear. I quoted you, then ended my response with the words "Get it?" I'm confident that you know that those words weren't directed to you, although I was initially addressing you. You and I are on the same page, so I already know that you JSE, "get it"! ;)

JSE
10-22-2004, 06:35 AM
Precisely.

Dimocrats' eyes glazed over when Kerry spoke of upping the minimum wage to $7. That pleases people who believe they are owed a better wage despite their lack of skill and/or education. But any company must turn a profit in order to stay in business, so if their labor costs go up they'll look to cut costs wherever they can in order to keep their product(s) price competitive.

If that means finding cheaper labor abroad who will do the same job, that means more Americans lose their jobs because of the minimum wage hike.

That means more people on the welfare rolls and on food stamps etc., living off the government which gets money to pay for those programs from working peoples' taxes.

So Kerry's utopia of higher wages for unskilled labor actually results in fewer jobs, higher taxes and higher costs. But it tempts the fools who will cast their vote for him.

Things have changed with our global economy and if we intend to remain competitive, we have to denounce the free giveaway tactics that con artists like John Kerry will use.

Incidentally, I know it's not necessary to apologize to you for the way I worded my response earlier, but I just want to make things clear. I quoted you, then ended my response with the words "Get it?" I'm confident that you know that those words weren't directed to you, although I was initially addressing you. You and I are on the same page, so I already know that you JSE, "get it"! ;)

Screw you man! :mad:

Nah, just kidding. :p I knew exactly what you were saying and to whom. (or is that who?)

I just can't believe people don't see through Kerry's "front". Raising taxes on businesses small and large looks good at first glance because everyone thinks they can afford it. But that's not the case. With todays wireless and paperless world, companies will continue to move out of the US and into countries with less taxation and regulation. For example, I could do my job from just about anywhere in the world as long as I have a phone and internet access and basic office supplies like a printer, computer, pen, pencil, etc. It almost sounds like Kerry want's to drive businesses away? Ooops, I fogot again. :D

Anyway, I'll be sulking away the rest of the day now that my Stros are out of the series.

JSE

FLZapped
10-22-2004, 06:57 AM
And the award for best spelling goes to Zapped. Dang man, it would have taken me half an hour just to make sure I spelled all those names correctly. Of course I am just assuming you got them right. :D

JSE


Shhhhhhh.....Don't tell anyone, but I copied them from "The Federalist".....

-Bruce

BTW - Although I have made my final point, I had previous points on this topic:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=19922&postcount=5
http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=20228&postcount=11
http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=20249&postcount=12
http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=20256&postcount=13
http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=20293&postcount=18
http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=20307&postcount=20
http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=20312&postcount=22
http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=20711&postcount=28
http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=20708&postcount=6
http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=21704&postcount=4

nobody
10-22-2004, 07:49 AM
A bit off topic, but as this is an election thread, I thought the following study of just how informed of Bush's positions his supporters are, and how aware of established facts they are would be inetresting to some of you...

<a href="http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf">The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters</a>

piece-it pete
10-22-2004, 11:23 AM
The GBO study did have a doctor on board. My conclusion, supported by many anecdotals, experiences, and some studies such as the studies cited finding no real correlation between the cost of medicine and ....... experience, when jurors are given this task they take it very seriously (this used to surprise me) and perform their tasks diligently.

I didn't KNOW jury awards were Constitutionally protected in the Federal arena. I'll have to look at that.

And strangly enough, I'm OK with caps on non-economic awards but not punitives, simply 'cause some companies are so big the punitive has to be huge to mean anything, and I trust businesses as much as I trust the gov't - not at all. Mostly a bunch of crooks IMO.

What I mean about a Doctor chiming in is, like us here. Different than a study, you know?

Anytime they pass a law, any law, it restricts us further. To bad we can't repeal one once in a while!

So what do we need to do? Completely deregulate the insurance industry?

Pete

piece-it pete
10-22-2004, 11:37 AM
A bit off topic, but as this is an election thread, I thought the following study of just how informed of Bush's positions his supporters are, and how aware of established facts they are would be inetresting to some of you...

<a href="http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf">The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters</a>

nobody,

Thanks for the link. I'll read it this weekend.

One thing was obvious at a glance - Kerry supporters sure are a lot righter - even though they're left.

OK, so that's not that funny, sue me.

I'm killing myself. :D

Have a great weekend!

Pete

FLZapped
10-22-2004, 01:26 PM
A bit off topic, but as this is an election thread, I thought the following study of just how informed of Bush's positions his supporters are, and how aware of established facts they are would be inetresting to some of you...

<a href="http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf">The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters</a>


This is a flawed report.

1) They did not provide the questions used in any of the polls as an appendix item, therefore it is impossible to tell what the questions were and what biases they contained. It also make it impossible to repeat the work.

2) They base many of their conclusions against the Charles Duelfer report, which came out on September 30 yet two of the three polls they used were taken weeks before it came out. The final, less than two weeks afterward.

3) They claim that Kerry supporters are more inline with his view, while ignoring the fact he has been on both sides of almost every issue during this campaign. Not even Imus, who strongly supports him can tell where he stands.

4) They use nebulous wording such as "substantial support" - which will mean different things to different people.

This statement alone shows how biased this report is:

"Bush appears to assume that his support is fragile. He refuses to admit to making any mistakes."

In a time of war, the president is not at liberty to say many things. He sure isn't going to say anything to indicate there may be a weakness the enemy may exploit. How are they to know how the president views his support? This is a complete guess on their part.

I also find it amazing that they ignore the fact that an AL Qaeda base was found during the war that we were able to gain intelligence from. I find it amazing that you have a major Al Qaeda figure(whose name escapes me) in Iraq more than once over the years not an indication of an alliance of some type. Now Al-Zarkawi has now admitted is allegance to Al Qaeda.

I can't say that I believe this "paper" is worth the electrons it's written on.

-Bruce

dean_martin
10-22-2004, 01:36 PM
Swift Boats at the time were known to be one of the safest places to be if you had to be in Vietnam. They patrolled the coastal areas. Kerry had no problem with that strategy, therefore he volunteered for it rather than be drafted into a place where he would face greater danger. But military strategists decided to change their tactics and to use them to patrol inland rivers. That's when Kerry started getting all bent out of shape because it put him in much greater danger. Kerry's service in Vietnam reeks of cowardly incident after cowardly incident.

Several crafts would patrol together and when a mine blew up one of the boats, Kerry gunned his boat and high-tailed it out of the area. The other boats went to rescue the crew of the crippled boat. Once Kerry saw that it was safe, he turned his boat around and went back to the scene. There are many such incidents. One of the people who support him, Jim Rassman, was knocked overboard and was in the water at the time. He heard gunfire, so his account of the incident refers to enemy gunfire. When the mine exploded, the Swiftees thought they were being ambushed, so laid down fire into the shores. None of their boats had any damage recorded from enemy fire and Kerry's request for a Purple Heart was initially turned down because everybody knew there was no enemy fire. Kerry went around the system to get a Purple Heart for his wound which by his own admission came from an incident earlier in the day where he threw a grenade into a rice bin and the exploding shapnel and rice gave him some superficial wounds, treated with Bactarin and bandaids.

He was such a whiner and complainer once they were on the more dangerous patrols that nobody wanted him around and considered him reckless and a danger to them. It was actually his fellow vets that wanted him to take advantage of the 3 Purple Owie awards to get him away from them. They felt their lives were in jeopardy with Kerry around.

If the Swiftees are lying, all Kerry has to do is sign a form 180 to release his military records. That simple act would prove they were lying. Yet, he refuses to do so. Ask yourself...why is he so afraid of releasing records if he is telling the truth?

.

The above is the type of vile and vulgar stuff that is made up of distortions and personal attacks. Again, I refer you to my previous post "How about these tactics..." in which it is revealed that Karl Rove initiated a "whisper" campaign against a judicial condidate in my home state of Alabama. The whisper campaign accused the judicial candidate of being a homosexual pedophile. The candidate had been running ads that demonstrated his support for and establishment of a charity for kids in need. The philosophy behind the attack campaign is the same philosophy we've been seeing since summer - attack your opponent on his best, or otherwise untouchable strength. Rather than letting this vulgarity go unchallenged, I've copied the following:

Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record
Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.

August 6, 2004
Modified:August 22, 2004
Summary



A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.

One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."

And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.


Analysis



"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is a group formed March 23 after Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination. It held a news conference May 4 denigrating Kerry's military record and his later anti-war pronouncements during the 1970's. The group began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which 13 veterans variously say Kerry is "not being honest" and "is lying about his record."

SBVT Ad "Any Questions?"

John Edwards: "If you have any questions about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him."

(On screen: Here's what those men this of John Kerry)

Al French: I served with John Kerry.

Bob Elder : I served with John Kerry.

George Elliott: John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam.

Al French: He is lying about his record.

Louis Letson: I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury.

Van O'Dell: John Kerry lied to get his bronze star...I know, I was there, I saw what happened.

Jack Chenoweth: His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day.

Admiral Hoffman: John Kerry has not been honest.

Adrian Lonsdale: And he lacks the capacity to lead.

Larry Thurlow: When he chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry.

Bob Elder: John Kerry is no war hero.

Grant Hibbard: He betrayed all his shipmates...he lied before the Senate.

Shelton White: John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam.

Joe Ponder: He dishonored his country...he most certainly did.

Bob Hildreth: I served with John Kerry...

Bob Hildreth (off camera) : John Kerry cannot be trusted.

Where the Money Comes From

Although the word "Republican" does not appear in the ad, the group's financing is highly partisan. The source of the Swift Boat group's money wasn't known when it first surfaced, but a report filed July 15 with the Internal Revenue Services now shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston

Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group through the end of June, according to its disclosure report .

Perry and his wife Doylene also gave more than $3 million to Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections, according to a database maintained by the Institute on Money in State Politics . The Perrys also were among the largest Republican donors in neighboring Louisiana, where they gave $200,000, and New Mexico, where they gave $183,000, according to the database

At the federal level the Perrys have given $359,825 since 1999, including $6,000 to Bush's campaigns and $27,325 to DeLay and his political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, according to a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics .

The Silver Star

Several of those who appear in the ad have signed brief affidavits, and we have posted some of them in the "supporting documents" section to the right for our visitors to evaluate for themselves.

One of those affidavits, signed by George Elliott, quickly became controversial. Elliott is the retired Navy captain who had recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, which was awarded for events of Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry beached his boat in the face of an enemy ambush and then pursued and killed an enemy soldier on the shore.

Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier. Later Elliott signed a second affidavit saying he still stands by the words in the TV ad. But Elliott also made what he called an "immaterial clarification" - saying he has no first-hand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star.

What Elliott said in the ad is that Kerry "has not been honest about what happened in Viet Nam." In his original affidavit Elliott said Kerry had not been "forthright" in Vietnam. The only example he offered of Kerry not being "honest" or "forthright" was this: "For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.

In the Globe story, Elliott is quoted as saying it was a "terrible mistake" to sign that statement:

George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.

In his second affidavit, however, Elliott downgraded that "terrible mistake" to an "immaterial clarification." He said in the second affidavit:

Elliott (second affidavit): I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.

Elliott also said he now believes Kerry shot the man in the back, based on other accounts including a book in which Kerry is quoted as saying of the soldier, "He was running away with a live B-40 (rocket launcher) and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." (The book quoted by Elliott is John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography, By The Reporters Who Know Him Best.)

Elliott also says in that second affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." That statement is misleading, however. It mischaracterizes the actual basis on which Kerry received his decoration.

The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

Two other citations omit any mention of the killing. One was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and the other was signed by the Secretary of the Navy. Both those citations say Kerry attacked his first set of ambushers and that "this daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers." Later, 800 yards away, Kerry's boat encountered a second ambush and a B-40 rocket exploded "close aboard" Kerry's boat. "With utter disregard for his own safety, and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet away from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy." In these citations there is no mention of enemy casualties at all. Kerry was cited for "extraordinary daring and personal courage . . . in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."

Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush:

Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there.

Elliott now feels differently, and says he has come to believe Kerry didn't deserve his second award for valor, either, based only on what the other anti-Kerry veterans have told him. He told the Globe Aug. 6:

Elliott: I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand.

On Aug. 22 an officer who was present supported Kerry's version, breaking a 35-year silence. William B. Rood commanded another Swift Boat during the same operation and was awarded the Bronze Star himself for his role in attacking the Viet Cong ambushers. He said Kerry and he went ashore at the same time after being attacked by several Viet Cong onshore.
Rood said he was the only other officer present. Rood is now an editor on the metropolitan desk of the Chicago Tribune, which published his first-person account of the incident in its Sunday edition. Rood said he had refused all interviews about Kerry's war record, even from reporters for his own paper, until motivated to speak up because Kerry's critics are telling "stories I know to be untrue" and "their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us."

Rood described two Viet Cong ambushes, both of them routed using a tactic devised by Kerry who was in tactical command of a three-boat operation. At the second ambush only the Rood and Kerry boats were attacked.

Rood: Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch--a thatched hut--maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.

With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.

Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.

Rood disputed an account of the incident given by John O'Neill in his book "Unfit for Command," which describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." Rood said, "I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore."



The Bronze Star

The most serious allegation in the ad is that Kerry received both the Bronze Star, his second-highest decoration, and his third purple heart, which allowed him to be sent home early, under false pretenses. But that account is flatly contradicted by Jim Rassmann, the former Army Lieutenant whom Kerry rescued that day.

Van O'Dell, a former Navy enlisted man who says he was the gunner on another Swift Boat, states in his affidavit that he was "a few yards away" from Kerry's boat on March 13, 1969 when Kerry pulled Rassman from the water. According to the official medal citations, Kerry's boat was under enemy fire at the time, and Kerry had been wounded when an enemy mine exploded near his own boat. O'Dell insists "there was no fire" at the time, adding: "I did not hear any shots, nor did any hostile fire hit any boats" other than his own, PCF-3.

Others in the ad back up that account. Jack Chenoweth, who was a Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding PCF-3, said Kerry's boat "fled the scene" after a mine blast disabled PCF-3, and returned only later "when it was apparent that there was no return fire." And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."


Kerry Ad "Heart"

John Kerry: I was born in Fitzsimmons Army Hospital in Colorado, my dad was serving in the Army air corps. Both of my parents taught me about public service. I enlisted because I believed in service to country. I thought it was important, if you had a lot of privileges as I had had, to go to a great university like Yale, that you give something back to your country.

Del Sandusky: The decisions that he made saved our lives.

Jim Rassmann: When he pulled me out of the river, he risked his life to save mine.

Narrator: For more than 30 years John Kerry has served America.

Vanessa Kerry: If you look at my father's time and service to this country, whether it has been a veteran, prosecutor, or Senator, he has shown an ability to fight for things that matter.

Teresa Kerry: John is the face of someone who is hopeful, who is generous of spirit, and of heart.

John Kerry : We're a country of optimists...we're the can-do people, and we just need to believe in ourselves again.

Narrator: A lifetime of service and strength: John Kerry for President.

A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.

Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that decoration states that all Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." It was signed by Elliott.

The Post quoted Thurlow as saying he had lost his citation years earlier and had been under the impression that he received the award for aiding the damaged boat and its crew, and that his own award would be "fraudulent" if based on his facing enemy fire. The Post reported that, after hearing the citation read to him, Thurlow said: "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case. . . My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting. . . . I am here to state that we weren't under fire."

None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.

Jim Rassmann was the Army Special Forces lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water. Rassmann has said all along that he was under sniper fire from both banks of the river when Kerry, wounded, helped him aboard. Rassmann is featured in an earlier Kerry ad, in fact, (see script at left) saying "he (Kerry) risked his life to save mine."

On Aug. 10, Rassmann wrote a vivid account of the rescue in the Wall Street Journal that contradicts the Kerry accusers. Rassmann said that after the first explosion that disabled PCF-3:

Rassmann: Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

Rassmann said he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for that action, and learned only later that the Bronze Star had been awarded instead. "To this day I still believe he deserved the Silver Star for his courage," he wrote. Rassmann described himself as a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans," Rassmann said. But he said Kerry "will be a great commander in chief."

"This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."

On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.

Langhofer: There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river.

The Third Purple Heart

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth further says Kerry didn't deserve his third purple heart, which was received for shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm. The Swift Boat group's affidavits state that the wound in Kerry's backside happened earlier that day in an accident. "Kerry inadvertently wounded himself in the fanny," Thurlow said in his affidavit, "by throwing a grenade too close (to destroy a rice supply) and suffered minor shrapnel wounds."

The grenade incident is actually supported by Kerry's own account, but the shrapnel wound was only part of the basis for Kerry's third purple heart according to official documents. The evidence here is contradictory.

Kerry's account is in the book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, who based it largely on Kerry's own Vietnam diaries and 12 hours of interviews with Kerry. "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice-bin explosions and then we started to move back to the boats," Kerry is quoted as saying on page 313. In that account, Kerry says his arm was hurt later, after the mine blast that disabled PCF-3, when a second explosion rocked his own boat. "The concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door and I smashed my arm," Kerry says on page 314.

And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94," Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury.

The official citation for Kerry's Bronze Star refers only to his arm injury, not to the shrapnel wound to his rear. It says he performed the rescue "from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain." The description of Kerry's arm "bleeding" isn't consistent with the description of a "contusion," or bruise.

Rassmann's Aug. 10 Wall Street Journal article states that Kerry's arm was "wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat," which would make that wound clearly enemy-inflicted.

In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters.

Another major discrepancy raises a question of how close Kerry's accusers actually were to the rescue of Rassmann. Tour of Duty describes Rassmann's rescue (and the sniper fire) as happening "several hundred yards back" from where the crippled PCF-3 was lying, not "a few yards away," the distance from which the anti-Kerry veterans claim to have witnessed the incident.

First Purple Heart

Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The person who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.

In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.

On Aug. 17 the Los Angeles Times quoted Letson as giving a slightly different account than the one in his affidavit. The Times quotes him as saying he heard only third-hand that there had been no enemy fire. According to the Times, Letson said that what he heard about Kerry's wounding came not from other crewmen directly, but through some of his own subordinates. Letson was quoted as saying the information came from crewmen who were "just talking to my guys … There was not a firefight -- that's what the guys related. They didn't remember any firing from shore."

Letson also insisted to the Times that he was the one who treated Kerry, removing a tiny shard of shrapnel from Kerry's arm using a pair of tweezers. Letson said Carreon, whose signature appears on Kerry's medical record, was an enlisted man who routinely made record entries on his behalf. Carreon signed as "HM1," indicating he held the enlisted rank of Hospital Corpsman First Class.

Also appearing in the ad is Grant Hibbard, Kerry’s commanding officer at the time. Hibbard’s affidavit says that he “turned down the Purple Heart request,” and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn."

That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel "lodged in Kerry's arm" (though "barely.")

Hibbard also told the Boston Globe in an interview in April 2004 that he eventually acquiesced about granting Kerry the purple heart.

Hibbard: I do remember some questions on it. . .I finally said, OK if that's what happened. . . do whatever you want

Kerry got the first purple heart after Hibbard left to return to the US .

McCain Speaks Up

Sen. John McCain -- who has publicly endorsed Bush and even appealed for donations to the President's campaign -- came to Kerry's defense on this. McCain didn't witness the events in question, of course. But he told the Associated Press in an August 5 interview:

McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.

At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.


Sources

Michael Kranish,“Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry ,” The Boston Globe, 6 August 2004 .

Jodi Wilgoren, "Vietnam Veterans Buy Ads to Attack Kerry," The New York Times, 5 August 2004.

Douglas Brinkley, Tour of Duty, (NY, HarperCollins, 2004).

Jim Rassmann, "Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush," Wall Street Journal, 10 Aug 2004: A10.

Ron Fournier, "McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad," Associated Press, 5 August 2004.

Michael Kranish, "Kerry Faces Questions Over Purple Heart," The Boston Globe , 14 April 2004: A1.

Michael Kranish, "Heroism, and growing concern about war," The Boston Globe, 16 June 2003.

Maria L. La Ganga and Stephen Braun, "Race to the White House: Veterans Battle Over Truth; An ad calls Kerry a liar. His Vietnam crew sees a hero. Memories, and agendas, are in conflict." Los Angeles Times 17 Aug 2004: A1.

Michael Dobbs, "Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry; Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire" Washington Post, 19 Aug. 2004: A1.

William B. Rood, "FEB. 28, 1969: ON THE DONG CUNG RIVER
`This is what I saw that day'" Chicago Tribune 22 Aug 2004.

Michael Dobbs, "Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete: Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode," Washington Post 22 Aug 2004: A1.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
10-22-2004, 02:51 PM
And that argument would be without merit. Saddam was supposed to comply with inspectors, as per his terms of surrender. He chose to obfuscate and play shell games. We had TWELVE years of patience. That's certainly no "rush to war".

First, finding WMD was not a US mandate, but a UN mandate. Secondly Hans Blix at the time we chased out the weapons inspectors had openly said that Hussein WAS openly cooperating, just not in the fashion that US had desired. Since this is a UN mandate, it is up to them to decide the level of cooperation, not us. However your beloved Bush wanted to run the show, and now we have a mess of epic proportions on our hands.

Saying we had tweleve years of patience doesn't quite square when you consider the fact we, at this time, on this day, have found nothing whatsoever in terms of WMD. If we waited twelve years, what's a few more months considering it could have saved more than 1,000 american lives, 5-6,000 injuries, billions and billions of dollars countless innocent Iraqi women and children, and the embarrasement of the Abu grabe debacle that has killed our world standing.. Some could argue that our aggressive stance on this issue, and the fact that WMD cannot be found has had the effect of devalueing our worth to zero. Can you imagine us going to China and bringing up civil rights issues? Wouldn't fly with them based on what they have seen.


Had you been paying close attention, you might have noticed how Syria is on the Human Rights Commission and the U.S. is not! Doesn't that say anything to you? Syria?? A haven for terrorism and VIOLATION of human rights? The U.N. has lost its credibility. The oil-for-food scandal is just one more indication that the U.N. has turned into a corrupt organization which has devalued to the point of worthlessness.

You are assuming that I don't know about Syria. It's these same kinds of assumptions that has got our country into this quagmire in Iraq. Putting Syria on the human rights commission was a mistake, just like we made our fair shair of mistakes, should this country once again be dismissed on the world stage just like you are willing to dismiss the UN? We went to war, the only place we guarded after the combat was over was the oil ministry. It remained the only building left unplundered by Iraqi's. Weapons were stolen from UNGUARDED weapons stockpiles, Lab's had been broken into with some lethal chemical drums found empty, ancient treasures had been looted because we didn't protect their museums. The electrical grid which was once minimally operating was not protected, order was not restored and peoples lives were not protected, yet we are standing guard in front of the oil ministry. Does that make any sense to you? Because of our mistakes, we now have a out of control insurgency, with terrorist coming from out of the country to wreak havoc because we didn't block and control the borders. France, Russia, and Germany cannot be relied upon, but we can't even get the countries within the coalition(if that is what you call it) or not currently in it to put combat troops on the ground. We can't even get them to stay in this mess as we already have countries pulling out, or about to. You have this, the largest debt in our history, tax cuts that benefit the rich, a middle class shrinking faster these last four years than in the previous 20, jobs leaving because of the tax benefits given by this administration, a heath care system that is out of control, and it took some else to mention it(he wouldn't because he has given tax cuts to drug companies) a country so divided, so bitter, so angry, and so without a purpose but to get themselves out of a mess, I am willing to give someone else a chance to do better than he is.

I understand fully that Syria is on the Human rights commission, and the UN might not be credible at all. But does that give us the right to invade a soverign country based on a assumption, and not fact. We have corrupt leaders in our country, how do we think that we should be going elsewhere without taking care of our own problems.


Wishful thinking on your part. The inspections team had YEARS to do their job. They could reach NO such conclusion as long as Saddam kept up the shell game. With the mass graves found in Iraq, how could you possibly say that more Iraqis would be alive if we stayed out of there? Saddam murdered HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent people. We're killing the Iraqis who are shooting at us!

Is it wishful thinking, we haven't found $hit there, not one damn thing. Hans Blix hadn't found a thing during his search, we, after the war haven't found a damn thing either. It takes years to search a country the size of California. What he had was a bluff, and the inspections would have bourne that out. Saddam murder hundreds of thousands, however the dictator of North Korea has allowed(and killed) millions to die. Why haven't we gone after him? No resources that's why. Afganistan was a legitimate war, but we also had a alternative reason for going in there, and why we fought so hard to get the Russians out, a pipeline to ship natural gas across that country. We fought to get Iraq out of Kuwait because they would have controlled a huge portion of mideast oil had we let them stay. The Bush's have a huge stake in oil, and it seems rather ironic that both Bush's have fought wars in countries with a huge oil reserves. I am not a conspiracy kind of guy, but this does bring me pause, and make me wonder why we took it upon ourselves to deal with Iraq, even when we knew that they had no ties to terrorist, did no business with terrorist, and even had sights on doing business with terrorist. We relied on unsure, and unlitmately failed intelligence which Bush himself cut funding to in 2001


That also happened during the Clinton administration. Were you complaining then?

Not at nearly the rate it has happened with this current adminstration. Clinton never rewarded business to take jobs out of this country, Bush has. Clinton never gave tax cuts to the rich, while giving the middle class three hundred measly dollars, and the poor next to nothing. Bush has, and has vowed to do it again. Clinton DID try and deal with healthcare, and was given a bad wrap for it. Bush has done NOTHING on healthcare and now we have 40million(about 20-25 million more than when he took office) without healthcare.


Nope. Sorry. The Dimocrats are responsible for that. Before Bush even took the oath of office, he was being ripped apart by Dimocrats. They even blamed him for the downswing in the economy WHILE CLINTON WAS STILL PRESIDENT. They never gave Bush a fair shake and no matter WHAT Bush would do, they would criticize it. We get attacked on 9/11, and Dimocrats complained that Bush sat for a whole 7 minutes when first notified of it. But when he takes decisive action, he gets criticized. Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't. There are MANY instances of that kind of unfair treatment of Bush.

Sorry Jesky, but that is not the truth at all. Bush wanted to change the constitution to support marriage, but penalize and marginalize gays. Gays hate him, and the christian right because of their influence in this. This happen during HIS watch, not Clintons. Bush got this country in a financial mess with increased spending, and tax cuts to the wealthy, not Clinton. The middle class has shrunk more in 4 years than in the previous 20 years. Bush has watered down conservation and wildlife protection rules, not Clinton, he strengthen them. Conservation and naturalist hate him. Bush threw his support behind getting rid of affrimative action. Now blacks and Latino's hate him(at least those not in the christian right). As long as I have been living, I have not seen such a variety of organizations, people, or whole parties hate a president so much. Arabs loathe him because he has disengeged from the palistinian issue thereby allowing terrorist to kill jews, and Jews to kill 4 times as many palistinians in return. .

Bush had a record in Texas before he came to Washington. Texas was the most polluted state, had one of the worst education systems, and was not exactly working on a balanced budget. He also did not win the poplular vote, had no mandate, and millions of blacks were alienated to get him in office. Our highest court(or which a majority was picked by daddy Bush) decided this vote. The Democrats where attacking the system that would allow all of this to take place.


Our global economy is changing and there's not a thing that Kerry, Bush or ANYONE can do about it. Keeping some industries alive is like demanding that companies who produced slide rules be kept afloat. That's nonsense and you know it. The "tax cut to the wealthy" is just another Dimocrat talking point. The cut was even across the board. Poorer people didn't get as much back BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PAY AS MUCH INTO THE SYSTEM. It's that simple.

s.

Sorry man, it is a known fact that these tax cuts help the rich more than the poor or middle class. Using an across the board system is loaded toward the rich by default. You should know this. Responsible tax cuts benefits those who need it the worst, not who paid the most. Bush designed a system of tax cuts that minimally benefitted those who needed it the worst, and gave the most to those who needed it the least. It is also well established that trickled down economics does not work(which is what this tax cut was designed to emulate). We knew this before he even took office, and If I knew this before, he should have unless this tax cut to the rich is a payback.

I clearly understand the economy is changing. So why not change with the economy. Reward companies that keep jobs here with tax benefits and write offs. Give compaines an incentive to stay in this country and compete. If europe can manage to keep the compainies in their respective countries, why do we have a problem. One thing is for certain, companies that are shipping job abroad don't make slide rules. They are shipping engineering jobs(which require a very good education), medical transcribing, office administration, Customer service jobs involving idividuals private information and the beat goes on. Some of these jobs are highly specialized, and require masters and PH.D to do. How in the heck can Bush's education initiatives help somebody who already has more than 12 years of higher education? By calling the tax cut to the wealthy just a
talking point, just goes to show just how deep a Bush supporert is willing to sink their heads in the sand and ignore this administrations arrogance, lack of forethought, and willingness to sacrafice the reputation of this country.

Do I think anyone mind would be changed from any of these words. No. Some people are willing to sacrafice everything just to re-elect one person. The only President in our history who claims to have perfect record regarding decision making(refused to admit in debates that he made ANY errors, not even one!!!)

Woochifer
10-22-2004, 07:09 PM
How about we look at it from the opposite angle? Years ago, California liberals decided to load up corporations with all sorts of taxes and regulations. More taxation means more money in the coffers, right? What HAPPENED was that it became economically undesireable for many companies to function in California, so they moved their businesses to more friendly states, like Nevada. The loss of those businesses in California meant less tax collected both from the corporations and the employees that worked for them. So, more taxation resulted in less tax income. Get it?
That's how liberal destruction works. Then they try to blame the loss of jobs on Republicans.

Sorry, but that's an oversimplification of California's situation and the wrong angle. For my job, I've done survey research and dozens of business interviews throughout the state over the last 10 years, and I can tell you that business taxes and regulations are consistently way down the list of costs that threaten to drive businesses under or out of state. Sure, businessowners will complain about taxes and regulations (who doesn't?) but those are rarely the most important factors that determine whether or not businesses stay put or move. Depending on the sector, the business climate factors center more around bigger concerns like labor force availablity/cost/training, cost and availability of business space, access to business partners and support services, and access to customers and markets. To distill it all down to taxes and regulations is one of the biggest myths that opportunist politicians have perpetuated in Calif.

During the dotcom boom, California lowered several of its taxes because the state was awash in huge surpluses. But, those rollbacks did absolutely nothing to affect the market forces that caused that whole house of cards to fall. In that frenzied environment, businesses went under or moved because their venture capital ran out, their markets were insufficient to support the scale of their activities, they had to compete and overpay for a limited supply of labor, business space was unavailable and/or overpriced, etc. Taxes and regulations were but an inconsequential factor in that implosion.

The Nevada example is not applicable because the actual volume of businesses that have relocated there doesn't amount to much, relative to the size of the California economy. Reno and the outskits of Las Vegas have had limited success with economic development, but the annual growth of any of the major economic regions in California will dwarf what Nevada's accomplished via the smokestack chasing approach. Those businesses that did relocate there are typically more in the marginal backoffice or warehousing operations, which are at a competitive disadvantage in California because the state's economy and its business climate assets are generally more advantageous to higher value added functions.

Nevada's a state with low taxes, but it also has a less skilled labor force, lower investment in higher education, underdeveloped trade infrastructure, limited base of existing business services, smaller markets, and a less diverse economic base. Businesses that are in high value added sectors such as biotechnology are not going to locate in Nevada just because it has lower taxes. They'll locate in California or a comparable region that has a skilled labor force in place, access to world class universities and sources of technology transfer, and a diverse base of business partners and suppliers.

FLZapped
10-23-2004, 05:43 PM
Clinton never rewarded business to take jobs out of this country

Sure he did, it was called NAFTA. -Bruce

JeffKnob
10-24-2004, 03:50 PM
Your not taking your thinking on the economy far enough. I'm no economic master but here is a very basic explaination

Taxes are cut. That puts more money in people's pockets. People spend this money on goods and services or invest. Because of increased sales and investment, production goes up. Increased production and sales means companies make more money. Companies making more money can hire more employees, expand, grow. Now that more people and companies are working and making more money they pay more taxes.

That's a very simplistic explanation so maybe someone else can chime in with a more detail explaination.

Another way to look at it is, consumer spending drives the economy. More money in your pocket promotes more cosumer spending.

In terms of your vote, maybe you should "bone-up" on the issues and understand them so you can make a informed decision. That would make a worthwhile difference.

JSE

Hey JSE,

Why don't you "bone-up" after all according to Nobody's article Bush supports just live in a dream world. Use a little common sense; it works wonders.

http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

JSE
10-25-2004, 05:48 AM
Hey JSE,

Why don't you "bone-up" after all according to Nobody's article Bush supports just live in a dream world. Use a little common sense; it works wonders.

http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html


OK Knob, I'll do that. Thanks for setting me straight.

JSE

piece-it pete
10-25-2004, 06:08 AM
What I'm not seeing is an argument FOR Kerry, only against Bush.

No wonder, with Kerrys' record!

At least we know what Bush will do. Hardly a strong endorsement, but Kerrys' hardly a strong contender.

Unless you count his magic wand. You know, the one that will "fix" health care, help all citizens at all times for all reasons, balance the budget, while keeping a middle class tax cut, build a coalition including all our enemies, keep soldiers from being shot, all while relegating terrorists to a "nuisance".

What a guy. No wonder his supporters are closer to reality! Got more of that stuff?

Pete

SRO
10-25-2004, 08:39 AM
Of course there are going to be those that will vote against him just because he is a Republican. It is not the right reason, but I know people who will only vote their party, Democrat or Republican. Bush is the incumbent, and if someone is not happy with his 4 years, it is perfectly acceptable to vote for Kerry. I am sure in 1996, many people used this rational in voting for Dole. Again, perfectly acceptable.

I think overall Bush has done a decent job in the war on terror. I don't think we should have gone in to Iraq. At the very least, I want to be told the truth. If we in fact went in for freedom and democracy, when are we going to China? Oh, that's right, they supply us with cheap labor. While I am all for lower taxes, I would not lower them during a time like this. He KNEW that we were going to have increased spending. I don't make a lot of money, I don't live in a $10,000,000 house. I can barely afford the one I live in, so I am not going to quit my job. It's called budgeting, and Bush neds to get a clue on this. I don't understand conservatives supporting him. He never saw a spending bill he didn't love. Less money in, more money out. I wish I could live like that with no consequence. It will have to be paid back somehow. The next Democrat that gets in will probably raise taxes. This will be to balance the budget. Both sides will argue against cuts in their pet projects, and the Democrat will be called a "tax and spend liberal." Well, is Bush a "spend and spend conservative?"

I am confused on Kerry's record. Does he show up in the Senate or not? In one sentence I hear that he isn't there 90% or more of the time, then next I hear he votes hundreds of times against defending the country. How many votes are there on defense, and is this all he shows up for? I would like for a Republican to tell me which it is, as they are making these claims. And while we are on this subject, didn't Cheney recommend the cuts in the late 80's/early90's that he did in fact vote to cut?

JSE
10-25-2004, 09:05 AM
I am confused on Kerry's record. Does he show up in the Senate or not? In one sentence I hear that he isn't there 90% or more of the time, then next I hear he votes hundreds of times against defending the country. How many votes are there on defense, and is this all he shows up for? I would like for a Republican to tell me which it is, as they are making these claims. And while we are on this subject, didn't Cheney recommend the cuts in the late 80's/early90's that he did in fact vote to cut?

I think Kerry has been absent in last year or so due to his run for office. I personally believe if your going to run for office, you should give up your current position. Some do, some don't. You clearly can't do both. Is that fair to the people that voted to put you there to be a Senator?

In regard to Cheney or any Senator or Congressman , you have to look through the political rhetoric. Did Cheney vote in favor of certain cuts on military programs. Sure, but that does not mean he does not support the military. It might mean that program A is outdated and does not make sense anymore. We now need program B. Does the US need more F-15 fighters or does it need the newer more advance F-22? Older programs have to be cut to make room for newer ones. You can apply this logic to Dems. or Reps. The key is to look deeper, not just take a candidates version.

JSE

dean_martin
10-25-2004, 09:48 AM
I am confused on Kerry's record. Does he show up in the Senate or not? In one sentence I hear that he isn't there 90% or more of the time, then next I hear he votes hundreds of times against defending the country. How many votes are there on defense, and is this all he shows up for? I would like for a Republican to tell me which it is, as they are making these claims. And while we are on this subject, didn't Cheney recommend the cuts in the late 80's/early90's that he did in fact vote to cut?

SRO - Here's Kerry's record on intelligence issues. www.factcheck.org, which incidentally shows that both campaigns are twisting the truth, has other assessments of his votes on taxes and defense spending. They may have attendance assessments as well.

Would Kerry Throw Us To The Wolves?
A misleading Bush ad criticizes Kerry for proposing to cut intelligence spending -- a decade ago, by 4%, when some Republicans also proposed cuts.

October 23, 2004
Modified: October 23, 2004
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Summary



A new Bush ad claims Kerry supported cuts in intelligence “so deep they would have weakened America ’s defenses” against terrorists, and shows a pack of hungry-looking wolves preparing to attack. Actually, the cut Kerry proposed in 1994 amounted to less than 4 percent, as part of a proposal to cut many programs to reduce the deficit.

And in 1995 Porter Goss, who is now Bush’s CIA Director, co-sponsored an even stronger deficit-elimination measure that would have cut CIA personnel by 20 percent over five years. When asked about that at his confirmation hearings he didn't disavow it.


Analysis



The Bush ad released Oct. 22 is called “wolves,” and is a direct appeal to fear.

Bush Cheney ‘04

“Wolves”

Announcer: In an increasingly dangerous world… Even after the first terrorist attack on America … John Kerry and the liberals in Congress voted to slash America ’s intelligence operations. By 6 billion dollars… Cuts so deep they would have weakened America ’s defenses. And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm..

(On Screen: Several wolves eye the camera, as if preparing to attack.)

Bush: I’m George W Bush and I approve this message.

Speak Softly But
Use Scary Words and Pictures

Using a soft-spoken female announcer to deliver the harsh message, the ad shows blurry images of a dark forest and a pack of hungry-looking wolves eying the camera and apparently contemplating an attack.

The announcer says that “after the first terrorist attack on America ” Kerry “voted to slash America ’s intelligence operations.” The ad is misleading in several ways, some of which we went over last March when President Bush first accused Kerry of trying to “gut” the intelligence budget.

Here are the ways this ad misleads voters:

•Old news: The “first terrorist attack” the ad refers to didn't happen September 11, 2001, as some listeners assume. It actually was more than a decade ago, in 1993, when a truck bomb went off in the parking garage under one of the World Trade Center towers. In fact, Kerry was supporting regular increases in intelligence spending for several years prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

•Exaggerated Wording: Kerry never proposed a single $6-billion cut in intelligence spending. He did propose S.1826 (see "supporting documents" at right) which included a $1-billion cut in 1994. That measure also would have frozen intelligence spending at that reduced level through 1998, allowing it to rise only by the rate of inflation. That could fairly be called a $5-billion cut spread over five years.

Total intelligence spending is a classified figure, but was estimated at the time to be $27 billion per year. So, the cut Kerry proposed amounted to an estimated 3.7 percent -- hardly a proposal to "slash" expenditures. That measure was debated on the Senate floor and on Feb 10,1994 it was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it.

The following year Kerry introduced another deficit-reduction package, S.1290 (see "supporting documents" at right). This one would have lowered the ceiling for intelligence spending by $300 million for five years starting in 1996. That would have amounted to a reduction of just over 1 percent of estimated intelligence spending.

Not only was this proposed reduction a small one, it came at a time when it had just become known that one intelligence agency had been hoarding $1 billion in unspent funds from its secret appropriations. Kerry's proposal died without a hearing, but a similar Republican-sponsored measure eventually became law (see below).

Saying that either of these proposals would “slash” spending is an exaggeration. Saying that a 4 percent or 1 percent cut would have “weakened America ’s defenses” is an opinion which the Bush campaign has a perfect right to state, but it is not a fact.

•Missing Context: The ad doesn’t tell the whole story. Some Republicans also supported similar cuts in intelligence spending at the time, including Bush’s current CIA Director Porter Goss.

Goss co-sponsored a draconian, deficit-elimination bill in 1995 (see "supporting documents" at right) that would have cut the number of CIA employees by 20 percent or more over five years. Goss wasn't the main author -- he signed onto an 1,188-page bill authored by Gerald Solomon, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, of which Goss was a member. The measure died without a hearing and had no prospect of passage, as it called for elimination of the Departments of Education, Energy and Commerce among other things. When questioned about his co-sponsorship of the bill during his confirmation hearings in September Goss said only, "the record speaks for the record."

Another Republican-sponsored cut similar to Kerry's proposed 1995 measure actually became law. On the same day Kerry proposed his $1.5-billion cut spread over five years, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. That measure was proposed by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and a companion measure was co-sponsored by Kerry and Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership. Specter explained at the time that the $1-billion cut was intended to recapture funds that had been appropriated for spy satellites, but which had gone unspent by the National Reconnaissance Office.


Sources



Dana Milbank, “Goss Backed '95 Bill to Slash Intelligence; Plan Would Have Cut Personnel 20%,” Washington Post, 24 Aug 2004 : A3.

"Hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee: Nomination of Rep. Porter J. Goss to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency," transcript, The Federal News Service, Inc., 14 Sep 2004.

103d Congress, 2d Session, S. 1826, "To reduce the deficit for fiscal years 1994 through 1998," 3 Feb. 1994.

104th Congress, 1st Session, S.1290, "To reduce the deficit," 25 Sep 1995.

104th Congress, 1st Session H.R. 1923, "To balance the budget of the United States Government by restructuring Government, reducing Federal spending, eliminating the deficit, limiting bureaucracy, and restoring federalism," 25 Jun 2004.




Related Articles
Bush Strains Facts Re: Kerry's Plan To Cut Intelligence Funding in '90's
President claims 1995 Kerry plan would "gut" the intelligence services. It was a 1% cut, and key Republicans approved something similar.

View Bush Ad "Wolves"


Title page and pertinent section of H.R. 1923, the 1995 bill co-sponsored by Porter Goss, which would have cut Intelligence personnel 20 percent over five years.

(.pdf - 20 KB)

Title page and pertinent sections of S.1826, Kerry's 1994 deficit-reduction bill, calling for a $1-billion cut and five-year freeze in intelligence spending.

(.pdf - 26 KB)
Title page and pertinent section of S.1290, Kerry's 1995 deficit-reduction bill to cut the ceiling for intelligence spending by $300 million for five years.

(.pdf - 12 KB)


FactCheck.org will send each new FactCheck and Special Report directly to your mailbox (disable pop-up blocker first).
Sign Up Now



Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center

SRO
10-25-2004, 10:00 AM
I think Kerry has been absent in last year or so due to his run for office. I personally believe if your going to run for office, you should give up your current position. Some do, some don't. You clearly can't do both. Is that fair to the people that voted to put you there to be a Senator?

In regard to Cheney or any Senator or Congressman , you have to look through the political rhetoric. Did Cheney vote in favor of certain cuts on military programs. Sure, but that does not mean he does not support the military. It might mean that program A is outdated and does not make sense anymore. We now need program B. Does the US need more F-15 fighters or does it need the newer more advance F-22? Older programs have to be cut to make room for newer ones. You can apply this logic to Dems. or Reps. The key is to look deeper, not just take a candidates version.

JSE

I agree that you should not be able to do both. But, shouldnt it be stated that he has missed most of his votes in the last year. They are trying to portray it as he hasn't been there at any time in his career. Or that he has, a few minutes later. Oh well, if you didn't see the debates and only relied on out 5 second soundbite news companies, you would only get part of it anyway.

On the other hand, if you really set this precedent, then the sitting President would also have to give up his seat. Or, since we the President can sign documents anywhere, maybe we should allow Congress to absentee vote while campaigning. This could obviously lead to abuse if not worded properly in legislation.

I also do not think the incumbent should be able to use Air Force One ( or Two ) on any campaign trip, or fund raising trip, even if it is tied in with official business. Because of this, I am financially supporting the Bush re-election campaign. If they do, the cost should be reimbursed from their campaign funds. Maybe this is the case, I've just never heard of it happening.

In terms of the weapons programs, I once again agree. But most conservatives only see Kerry as having these positions. Check Factcheck.org. They seem to be the only non-partisan site for information. I don't remember for sure, but I believe they state that Kerry has only voted twice against the military budget. This was when we were trying to cut out many outdated programs from the cold war. I would ask everyone to look deeper in to both candidates, as there seems to be a double standard from many conservatives ( not necessarily you ) on Kerry's voting record here.

nobody
10-25-2004, 11:20 AM
Here's a rather unusual endorsement from the American Conservative...

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

links to similar articles can be found here...

http://inprogress.typepad.com/republicanswitchers/


Unfortunately, for Kerry, more anti-Bush rather than pro-Kerry, which does indeed seem to be a trend. Still, that's kinda the way it goes running against an incumbent.

piece-it pete
10-25-2004, 11:57 AM
Of course there are going to be those that will vote against him just because he is a Republican. It is not the right reason, but I know people who will only vote their party, Democrat or Republican. Bush is the incumbent, and if someone is not happy with his 4 years, it is perfectly acceptable to vote for Kerry. I am sure in 1996, many people used this rational in voting for Dole. Again, perfectly acceptable.

Well said. But it only goes so far, would you vote for Kusinich because he isn't Bush? One should still do his/her homework.

Voting your party is voting FOR someone.


I think overall Bush has done a decent job in the war on terror. I don't think we should have gone in to Iraq. At the very least, I want to be told the truth. If we in fact went in for freedom and democracy, when are we going to China? Oh, that's right, they supply us with cheap labor. While I am all for lower taxes, I would not lower them during a time like this. He KNEW that we were going to have increased spending. I don't make a lot of money, I don't live in a $10,000,000 house. I can barely afford the one I live in, so I am not going to quit my job. It's called budgeting, and Bush neds to get a clue on this. I don't understand conservatives supporting him. He never saw a spending bill he didn't love. Less money in, more money out. I wish I could live like that with no consequence. It will have to be paid back somehow. The next Democrat that gets in will probably raise taxes. This will be to balance the budget. Both sides will argue against cuts in their pet projects, and the Democrat will be called a "tax and spend liberal." Well, is Bush a "spend and spend conservative?"

To say there's no difference between dealing with slightly different countries like, say, Iraq and China, is at best naive, at worst disingenuous. We all know why we went into Iraq. We were wrong, from the short view. So pull out? Screw the Iraqis (again)? Are we going to stand with them, or not? Or do we just pay lip service? The world (including the Arabs) is watching.

We will always have increased spending, we're talking about politicians fer Petes' sake! And an increasingly spoiled electorate. Heath care! But balance the budget. Right. Wait! We can tax the rich till they leave. Which is what they will do, eventually.

I agree that Bush is no spending lightweight. I do not believe he's a true conservative. Nope. So elect Kerry? lol. Clinton was FAR more of a centrist in reality than Kerry. Heck, according to his actual voting record, ANYBODY is more centrist than Kerry. Oops, doesn't matter, after all, we're only voting to get rid of Bush.

That will straighten everything out.


I am confused on Kerry's record. Does he show up in the Senate or not? In one sentence I hear that he isn't there 90% or more of the time, then next I hear he votes hundreds of times against defending the country. How many votes are there on defense, and is this all he shows up for? I would like for a Republican to tell me which it is, as they are making these claims. And while we are on this subject, didn't Cheney recommend the cuts in the late 80's/early90's that he did in fact vote to cut?

He missed 64% of his votes in 03, over 80% this year. Previous to the campaign (2 years ago?), when he cared to vote, he never met a tax dollar he didn't like.

When the bill extending unemployment benifits failed to pass (employment was rising, but it was still a must for the budget balancing Libs), it lost by ONE VOTE. Guess who wasn't there? One of MANY missed votes.

He did make it to work to use a bill helping our boys as a political stunt - but he's not Bush.

I believe Cheney rec'd certain cuts as part of a reorganisation, NOT to loot the military for increased pork. Big difference! And what about the other hundreds of votes? Well, they don't matter 'cause it was the Cheney vote, the only one that matters, it proves the GOP is full of it.

Kerry should win 'cause, heck, he ain't Bush. That'll solve our problems!

Pete

nobody
10-25-2004, 12:15 PM
Kerry should win 'cause, heck, he ain't Bush. That'll solve our problems!

Pete

Well, no not being Bush won't solve our problem. But, it could at the least stop us from continuing to make the same egregious errors we are making now, which would be a start.

piece-it pete
10-25-2004, 12:51 PM
Well, no not being Bush won't solve our problem. But, it could at the least stop us from continuing to make the same egregious errors we are making now, which would be a start.

Again, getting rid of Bush for getting rid of hims' sake. What can we expect from Kerry?

Pete

SRO
10-25-2004, 01:06 PM
Thanks to everyone who responded on the numbers for Kerry's voting record. I wish the politicians could have as civilized conservation as we seem to be settling into.

Pete:

I agree with you on voting for your party is a vote for someone. I just re-registered because of a move. When asked for affiliation, I chose " Decline to State". This leaves me out of the primary system. I'm stuck with whoever others put on the ballot for me. I tend to vote Democratic, but would have voted for McCain if the Repub's would have chosen him. He seems like one of the decent guys that are in office these days.

I was not being naive or disengeniuos about China. It's just that the reason for Iraq changes quite often. It seems as if I was one of the few that was against it from the beginning. I felt that since we had inspectors actually being able to finally do their jobs, we could have held off. If WMD's were found, go in and attack. Now we are bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq. This is why I brought up China, and got a little sarcastic with the cheap labor comment. I apologize for that. I am assuming that we needed a stable base in the Middle East, and Iraq is a great spot for that. That would be a tough sell to the American public, so other charges get trumped up.

According to FactCheck.org, Kerry is actually the 11th most liberal. I'm sure still too liberal for most. No offense, but for everyone to constantly repeat that he is the most liberal seems naive or disengenious. Or is it on purpose, to serve a specific political purpose?

I would like to see some honesty in politics. I know we are talking politicians, but do we not deserve it?

nobody
10-25-2004, 01:15 PM
Less cowboy, go it alone policies, more work toward consensus, both within the country (necessitated by a Democrat in the White House having to work with a Republican Senate), and internationally with a leader with more respect for international institutions and laws.

Likely more sane fiscal policies.
Everyone wants to paint him a tax and spend liberal, but with the previously mentioned clash between executive and legislative branches, he's unlikely to be able to make any major spending plans fly, and there's no way he's gonna outspend Bush.

Less morally driven rhetoric and more discussion of "real" issues
I've had enough of what little talk isn't about Iraq going toward religious crusades like "saving" marriage and the like that I'm ready for a different set of priorities. Let's talk about giving corporations reasons to keep jobs in the US for a change.

The possibility of rational environmental policies
A president who doesn't think the consensus of scientists noticing the greenhouse effect merely constitutes a myth

Women's right to choose respected
A majority of the population supports a women's right to choose, so should our president. Supreme court nominations are at stake which will greatly affect this issue.

Stem cell research
Sure religious extremists tell you stem cell research isn't necessary, but I'm more likely to believe the scientists who actually have detailed knowledge of the subject over religious fanatics. (another example of science being sacrificed for ideology in the current climate)



Do I think Kerry is a perfect candidate? Absolutely not. But, to me the differences I just mentioned are more than enough for me to desire a change. and I didn't even mention Bush's deceptive policies around Iraq and the mess he's created over there.

PPG
10-26-2004, 06:40 AM
I really don't understand why Bush is as high in the various national polls as he is. Seriously folks, do you think Kerry can screw the country up more than Bush & Cheney? Bush has over half the country playing right into his game plan: scaring everyone into believing he's the only one that can protect us from terrorism, and casting doubt on Kerry's ability to do better. There's some "conspiracy theories" that it's all part of the right's plan to incringe on our freedoms for the sake of "security" and I think there's a lot of weight to that theory, personally. Like John Edwards told Dick Cheney in their debate, "I don't think the country can take another four years of your experience."

piece-it pete
10-26-2004, 07:24 AM
Thanks to everyone who responded ......... some honesty in politics. I know we are talking politicians, but do we not deserve it?

SRO,

1st please accept my apology if I came across a bit harsh, I get worked up and occasionally overreact.

I think that McCain would have a big surprise in store for his moderate supporters if elected!

The reason we went into Iraq everybody knows.

And the inspections were a joke.

Regardless, we are there, premature withdrawal would be a disaster! Kerry has got to know this, he isn't stupid, I'm sure, therefore, he's lieing. How can you plan what OTHER people are going to do?

We screw the Iraqis again, no Arab (and most of the rest of the world) will trust us for DECADES.

We stay strong, we will have friends, and be more respected by our enemies - they'll know that they just can't wait us out (what Saddam was sure of, and what the mullahs are telling their insurgents now), because we will have proved it.

And the fact that we're killing terrorists and sapping their resources is true. Ditto for having a base of operations, and an ally.

Because of this, the Admin is trying to explain to us why we are still there, and why we should stay. They know it is important, and are worried that we WILL tire and leave. But there is SO MUCH that can't be said openly, for worldwide political reasons. I've found a great deal of info in the back pages of the Sunday paper, under the guise of background briefings. They're telling us, we're not paying attention.

Kerry is VERY liberal, however, different rating groups will have different guidelines. Each group will use what best suits them, of course.

Take the economy. Worst job loss since the depression. Also, great gains in productivity: 17% since Bush came to power, more than in Clintons' entire two terms. So, same issue, different take.

BTW, since increased productivity is the only justifiable reason for sustainable increases in wages/earnings, I believe whoever wins will end up looking very good a coupla years or less down the road.

Honesty in politics - what a concept!

:D

Are you under a barrage of political commercials? Those not in swing states have no idea how bitter this election is.

And they all suck. Hours of ads a day, not one iota of good info, equally true for both sides. Everyone complains, but many of our arguments are the same here (think of Moore), they must work or they wouldn't use them. We have met the enemy, and it is us!

I would argue that weare getting EXACTLY what we deserve.

That's nothing compared to the onslaught of lawsuits that will fly IMMEDIATELY after the results come out. I believe this undermines our system, but everyone will say "But it's not fair!" "Our guy actually won!" and perpetuate it. I think of the flawed Nixon (but man could we use his advice foreign policy wise right now!). Even he had enough class to leave the '60 election be, even though they had solid evidence of "irregularities" lol in Chicago (King Daley, cheat? Never!) and Texas, and that race was close enough for it to matter.

So I say to the Dems, (only partially tongue in cheek): At least be as classy and honorable as Nixon!

Heck the GOP probably's going to follow suit this cycle. We're all becoming weak-kneed whiners.

And how about the threat of car-bomb type attacks on polling places? We're gonna have SWAT patrols out in most commmunities here in Ohio, with police at each station. Ahh, the sweet smell of freedom. No wonder I like our actions in the Middle East.

Pete

BTW, I see that Ohio might become a lawsuit state, it's VERY close here and many of us still use butterfly ballots (I like them better than the electric machines, they are difficult to "fix"). I realise that some might not be able to work these things, but am not certain those folks matter all that much :) . Maybe I'll accidently vote for Nader. Oops, can't do that, the Dems had him thrown off the ballot!

Where's Buchanan? :D

FLZapped
10-26-2004, 07:30 AM
T I just re-registered because of a move. When asked for affiliation, I chose " Decline to State". This leaves me out of the primary system. I'm stuck with whoever others put on the ballot for me.


Here in Florida, we have a category called "None" - it too leaves us out of the primaries. I think we should be given a primary ballot with all candidates of all parties so we can vote for whomever we wish......

-Bruce

dean_martin
10-26-2004, 07:43 AM
Here in Florida, we have a category called "None" - it too leaves us out of the primaries. I think we should be given a primary ballot with all candidates of all parties so we can vote for whomever we wish......

-Bruce

The primary process is an interesting one. It's run soley by the political parties. In fact, a political party can choose it's candidate for the general election in any way it sees fit. It doesn't have to be by election. When a primary election is disputed in court, the only issue for the judge to decide (most of the time) is whether the party followed it's on procedures and/or by-laws regarding elections, candidate qualifications, etc. If its procedures were followed and the actual winner is still in dispute, then the party officials get to choose the winner. These are the general rules of primary elections; however, I'm sure there are exceptions.

FLZapped
10-26-2004, 08:26 AM
That's nothing compared to the onslaught of lawsuits that will fly IMMEDIATELY after the results come out.

BTW, I see that Ohio might become a lawsuit state, it's VERY close here and many of us still use butterfly ballots (I like them better than the electric machines, they are difficult to "fix"). I realise that some might not be able to work these things, but am not certain those folks matter all that much :) . Maybe I'll accidently vote for Nader. Oops, can't do that, the Dems had him thrown off the ballot!


The dems have already said they are going to file lawsuits even where there is a large differential. It seems clear to me that Kerry and the democratic (communist) party is willing to sue their way to the White House regardless of the election outcome.

As for the paper ballots, I can no longer find it online, but there was a news video of one of the people doing manual recounts caught altering one of the cards.

-Bruce

piece-it pete
10-26-2004, 08:44 AM
On Guarde!!

:D

Wait, that's French :( .


Less cowboy, go it alone policies, more work toward consensus, both within the country (necessitated by a Democrat in the White House having to work with a Republican Senate), and internationally with a leader with more respect for international institutions and laws.

How did "cowboy" ever get to be a slur, when it embodies all that's great about us? I'd wear that title like a badge of honor.

The last cowboy president brought down the USSR, a MUCH bigger threat overall than our current crop of haters.

Let's take a quick glance at who runs these int'l groups. Western Europe: couldn't even handle Bosnia. Heck, they can't even decide what to put on their money, so they go with abstract drawings! UN: appointed lackeys, incapable of action. Africa:? Think of any other geopolitical base, be it Russia, China, the Middle East. Just whos laws should we be obeying? Where is there ANY leadership?

The Senate, at 51 GOP/ 49 Dem is in practical gridlock, think fillibuster. You need 60 votes to do anything truly controversial. And we don't know what's going to happen to that balance come election time.



Likely more sane fiscal policies.
Everyone wants to paint him a tax and spend liberal, but with the previously mentioned clash between executive and legislative branches, he's unlikely to be able to make any major spending plans fly, and there's no way he's gonna outspend Bush.

What is Kerrys' record? What has he been proposing? Capital flows worldwide show money LEAVES high tax countries and goes to low tax. Think outsourcing on a much larger scale.


Less morally driven rhetoric and more discussion of "real" issues
I've had enough of what little talk isn't about Iraq going toward religious crusades like "saving" marriage and the like that I'm ready for a different set of priorities. Let's talk about giving corporations reasons to keep jobs in the US for a change.

A good reason that speaks directly to businessmens' hearts is lower taxes.

As far as morals go, ALL laws are moral. And gay marriage has been pushed and supported mightly by the Libs, they are forcing it on us, not the other way around.

Judging by the state issues passed we don't like it much.


The possibility of rational environmental policies
A president who doesn't think the consensus of scientists noticing the greenhouse effect merely constitutes a myth.

This is a tough one for me.

Not because of the environment. I've always been an avid primitive camper, from the backwoods of Missouri to Algonquin, as well as a lifelong skier. I love the wild.

And I believe we are damaging it badly. Have you seen the sattellite pics from over China and India? Gigantic soot clouds, covering both countries in their entirety!, from burning coal in more or less open fires. Why they are not talking about Kyoto.

My problem: who decides? If we could have a consensus from the Scientific community, that would help. But giving the power to an international group of bureaucrats, many of whom don't like us much (understatement), doesn't sound like a very good solution to me.

The Pres that allows others to screw us will be hated and despised.


Women's right to choose respected
A majority of the population supports a women's right to choose, so should our president. Supreme court nominations are at stake which will greatly affect this issue.

Depends on HOW you ask. If you say "No abortion for any reason", you get a majority against. If you say "Parental notification", you get a majority for. There is extemists on both sides. Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion ban - why?

The fact that the court decides shows me Jeffersons' fears were well founded. "The people" means "the legislature" not "the judges". Elect Dems, get activist judges who will tell you, with the FORCE of law, that they know what's best for you.


Stem cell research
Sure religious extremists tell you stem cell research isn't necessary, but I'm more likely to believe the scientists who actually have detailed knowledge of the subject over religious fanatics. (another example of science being sacrificed for ideology in the current climate).

Has anyone here looked up what this bruhaha is actually about? Politics, nothing more. No research has been slowed or stopped. It's a non-issue.


Do I think Kerry is a perfect candidate? Absolutely not. But, to me the differences I just mentioned are more than enough for me to desire a change. and I didn't even mention Bush's deceptive policies around Iraq and the mess he's created over there.

As you know, I think it would be a change for the worse. Deceptive? Throwing ribbons, keeping the metals, balancing the budget by increasing it, supporting the war, not supporting it, cutting the military budgetwise and morale-wise. Those baby-killing animals.

The mess, you can thank the mullahs for. Thank God (can I still say that?) it's not over here.

Pete

PS And why won't he release his military records?

piece-it pete
10-26-2004, 09:09 AM
The dems have already said they are going to file lawsuits even where there is a large differential. It seems clear to me that Kerry and the democratic (communist) party is willing to sue their way to the White House regardless of the election outcome.

As for the paper ballots, I can no longer find it online, but there was a news video of one of the people doing manual recounts caught altering one of the cards.

-Bruce

So much for the voice of the people.

I heard one old timer say that a counter would glue a little piece of pin under their fingernail to punch out another chad on ballots going for the opposing party, invalidating the ballot.

And of course, eating chads!

Pete

SRO
10-26-2004, 10:04 AM
Here in Florida, we have a category called "None" - it too leaves us out of the primaries. I think we should be given a primary ballot with all candidates of all parties so we can vote for whomever we wish......

-Bruce

I'm not sure a ballot with every candidate is a good idea. We actually tried an open primary a few years ago here in CA. It lasted for 1 primary and then was declared unconstitutional ( state constitution ). It was truly open, in that anyone registered to any party could vote for anyone on the ballot. If the parties were unprincipled ( certainly plausible ) and organized properly ( questionable, at best ), liberals could vote for the least electable conservative and vice versa. At least with voters registered to a specific party voting for their candidates should pick the person that best represents their beliefs. While this leaves us ( from your post I assume you are of the "None" party ) out of the system, we can't influence 1 parties choice. We have to pick the one we like best of the 2 choices. Somewhat unfortunate for us, but better for Democracy in the long run. At least that is my thinking.

nobody
10-26-2004, 10:08 AM
I don't really like the whole going point for point because this thread could just grow way too big for my tastes and we both know that we could go back and forth forever and not settle anything. Briefly, I will say that I think many people underestimate the importance of following international guidelines. It makes friends, which are very useful, particularly in situations like where we find ourselves in Iraq. I think this fear of becomming the UN's ***** that I see so many people (not necessarily you) mention is just silly. We created the UN to be able to exercize some control over other countries and it works for us on that way more than it works against us. If you wanna be isolationist, stop spreading business concernes across the globe. You can't have it both ways.

We're already a low tax country. Personally, I'm more interested in the average standard of living and domestic job creation than I am in corporate profits and overall GDP and such. You can say one brings about the other, but I don't really see that borne out in all cases. Look at how productivity has skyrocketed while jobs have stagnated or been lost and real income has gone down. I'm really tired of the scheme of letting big money guys get what they want and expecting it to eventually help the rest of us. Too many people have been waiting for the trickle down that never comes for my tastes.

The science stuff I mentioned can be looked up by anyone. Bush's policies fall in line with religious based extremist groups and fly in the face of most any serious scientific groups out there. The global warming thing is the most obvious example, but if you want to dismiss stem cell, go ahead, but it would seem the scientific community that actually works with them does not. I'll take their word over religious zealots any day.

The pro-choice is a hard issue to be sure, and wording can change things, but there is still no evidence at all to support the idea that a majority of Americans wish to overturn Roe vs. Wade, in fact all evidence points against it, which is the bottom line

And, partial birth is a scam, it is not a medical term, it is a political one, coined by anti-choice groups. Failure to use proper medical terminoology allows for far too much intrepretaion by the courts and puts doctors at risk. Also, the reason most partial-birth bills are shot down is because the hard line anti-choice groups who support the bills as a way in the door to further restrictions refuse to permit exceptions for even the health of the mother, so even if the procedure would save a life, it would be still be illegal.

OK...that's enough for now. Let's just agree to disagree. You just asked for some of my reason and I gave some. You don't have to agree with me. Let's face it, there are intelligent, well-meaning people on both sides of these issues; to pretend that only one side has any facts to back them up is silly. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.

And, the flip flop charges could be tossed at any open minded person if you looked at their beliefs over a 20 year or more period. If you go 20 years and have the same idea on everything and never change your mind, you're merely stubborn and closed-minded. When you learn, you change your mind about things. If you keep the same beliefs over a long period of time, you're generally not learning or you're learing and then refusing to change your beliefs based on new facts.

One of my favorite quotes from the campaigns was Kerry's assertation that "You can be certain, and still be wrong."

SRO
10-26-2004, 10:37 AM
Discussions on politics get more heated than anything else. Well, maybe sports.

Go Steelers! Or, should I say Go Broncos? Just kidding. My best friend is a huge Browns fan. Those are the teams he hates most.

As far as the ads go, I can't honestly say. My television viewing consists mostly of the Discovery, History, and National Geographic channels. The only news program I watch is our local morning news show for the weather and traffic reports. Since it is early, I am barely awake enough to even catch those.

How is the weather in Cleveland? My girlfriend lived in Painesville for a couple of years, and grew up in Youngstown. She still complains about the weather 2.5 years after moving here. Of course, she is upset beacause it is going to only be in the 60's and may rain later here.

PPG
10-26-2004, 10:44 AM
http://www.wral.com/politics/3850612/detail.html

piece-it pete
10-26-2004, 11:13 AM
I don't really like the whole going point for point because this thread could just grow way too big for my tastes and we both know that we could go back and forth forever and not settle anything. Briefly, I will say that I think many people underestimate the importance of following international guidelines. It makes friends, which are very useful, particularly in situations like where we find ourselves in Iraq. I think this fear of becomming the UN's ***** that I see so many people (not necessarily you) mention is just silly. We created the UN to be able to exercize some control over other countries and it works for us on that way more than it works against us. If you wanna be isolationist, stop spreading business concernes across the globe. You can't have it both ways.

We're already a low tax country. Personally, I'm more interested in the average standard of living and domestic job creation than I am in corporate profits and overall GDP and such. You can say one brings about the other, but I don't really see that borne out in all cases. Look at how productivity has skyrocketed while jobs have stagnated or been lost and real income has gone down. I'm really tired of the scheme of letting big money guys get what they want and expecting it to eventually help the rest of us. Too many people have been waiting for the trickle down that never comes for my tastes.

The science stuff I mentioned can be looked up by anyone. Bush's policies fall in line with religious based extremist groups and fly in the face of most any serious scientific groups out there. The global warming thing is the most obvious example, but if you want to dismiss stem cell, go ahead, but it would seem the scientific community that actually works with them does not. I'll take their word over religious zealots any day.

The pro-choice is a hard issue to be sure, and wording can change things, but there is still no evidence at all to support the idea that a majority of Americans wish to overturn Roe vs. Wade, in fact all evidence points against it, which is the bottom line

And, partial birth is a scam, it is not a medical term, it is a political one, coined by anti-choice groups. Failure to use proper medical terminoology allows for far too much intrepretaion by the courts and puts doctors at risk. Also, the reason most partial-birth bills are shot down is because the hard line anti-choice groups who support the bills as a way in the door to further restrictions refuse to permit exceptions for even the health of the mother, so even if the procedure would save a life, it would be still be illegal.

OK...that's enough for now. Let's just agree to disagree. You just asked for some of my reason and I gave some. You don't have to agree with me. Let's face it, there are intelligent, well-meaning people on both sides of these issues; to pretend that only one side has any facts to back them up is silly. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.

And, the flip flop charges could be tossed at any open minded person if you looked at their beliefs over a 20 year or more period. If you go 20 years and have the same idea on everything and never change your mind, you're merely stubborn and closed-minded. When you learn, you change your mind about things. If you keep the same beliefs over a long period of time, you're generally not learning or you're learing and then refusing to change your beliefs based on new facts.

One of my favorite quotes from the campaigns was Kerry's assertation that "You can be certain, and still be wrong."

One can be certainly wrong, too. :)

I'm no isolationist. I will point to my vocal belief that we SHOULD be in Iraq as proof.

I believe we should continue building the economic system that has brought untold wealth to much of the world.

I'd say "let the UN do it" is a copout. What, exactly, does the UN do, and how does it help more than hurt? Even what it accomplishes best, talk, is largely directed against us.

Productivity gain is the ONLY sustainable basis for increased wages. Everything else is temporary.

The economy cycles, although in a more centrally controlled economy it usually stays down after a possible initial boost. The reason we continue to grow, vs say Japan and I predict China (remember this!) is the free flow of capitol. If controlled by the Gov't or ANYBODY the controlling power will always work to protect the status quo, whether or not the overall economy has moved on.

And we are *much* weathier overall than when trickle down was pushed by Reagan.

Although adult stem cell research has paid off to some degree, not ONE thing has come of fetal stem cells. Call it what you will, there is NOTHING stopping this research - it's political mud slinging. Homework time.

If the American people are pro-abortion, why does the Supreme Court have to decide? Aren't our representatives elected by the majority? Or shouldn't that be up to us. Are we free?

Here's the partial birth abortion scam: The medical definition is "DILATION & EXTRACTION", d and x for short., or, if you like, "Intrauterine Cranial Decompression". It is a medical procedure.

For those who don't know already, here's how it works:

"The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb."

So, you "partially birth" the "fetus" (5th month or later - this is a child, if born would be a preemie), stick a pair of scissors into the base of the neck, pull out the scissors, and suck out the brains. Mind you, this baby is alive at the beginning of this.

Well, we agree on one thing, that sure doesn't sound like a legit medical procedure!

If they pulled the baby all the way out it would be murder under law. Who is scamming who? We care soooooo much. Save the whales! Kill the preemies.

You're right, we will disagree on many things, and come a coupla weeks will act upon them. People absolutely change their minds upon new information, and should. I would have argued very very close to your same position less than 20 years ago.

In Great Britain, they call the opposition "idiots". Just kidding :) (though that's prolly true to!). It's "the Loyal opposition". I like this term.

Pete

nobody
10-26-2004, 11:41 AM
Problem with your abortion agruement is that those who favor the laws against so-called "partial-birth" abortion refuse to use a proper medical term to describe the procedure in their legislation. They prefer to remain vague in order to have the greatest possible impact and perhaps impact further procedures. They have also refused time and gain to set a limit on the time when procedures can be performed. They have also refused to allow for exceptions to protect the health and well-being of the mother.

Stem-cell funding is the issue, if that's what you meant by do homework. Find a private-funded scientific medical organization that has the means to fund detailed research into anything outside the military (which gets giovernment supprot anyway).


And, if productivity gain is the sustainable reason for growing wages, why haven't they been going up? Productivity has. And the "we are much wealthier overall" is arguable if you are looking at the majority of citizens personal standard of living as a measure, which is what I look at.

JSE
10-26-2004, 11:47 AM
Problem with your abortion agruement is that those who favor the laws against so-called "partial-birth" abortion refuse to use a proper medical term to describe the procedure in their legislation.

Call it what you want but people are either against the practice or they are not. I don't care what it is called, I'm against it. What would you call it?

JSE

nobody
10-26-2004, 11:51 AM
If those supporting the bans were satisfied to outlaw just that procedure you are discussing, they could likely get through a ban against Intrauterine Cranial Decompression during the third trimester with an allowence for the health and life of the mother.

They're not, so their legislation gets tossed.

JOEBIALEK
10-26-2004, 02:21 PM
wow, some great points from both sides........the newly registered voter stampede will send Bush packing........

gonefishin
10-26-2004, 05:19 PM
Problem with your abortion agruement is that those who favor the laws against so-called "partial-birth" abortion refuse to use a proper medical term to describe the procedure in their legislation. They prefer to remain vague in order to have the greatest possible impact and perhaps impact further procedures. They have also refused time and gain to set a limit on the time when procedures can be performed. They have also refused to allow for exceptions to protect the health and well-being of the mother.




Hi nobody :)

Actually, the partial birth abortion act(s) were written void of much of the pork you commonly see. Also, it's anything but vague. The original bill read like this...


Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

Defines a "partial-birth abortion" as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion: (1) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the mother's body, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother's body; and (2) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.

Authorizes the father, if married to the mother at the time of the abortion, and the maternal grandparents of the fetus, if the mother is under 18 years of age, to obtain specified relief in a civil action, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.

Authorizes a defendant accused of an offense under this Act to seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother.

Prohibits the prosecution of a woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed for conspiracy to violate this Act or under provisions regarding punishment as a principal or an accessory or for concealment of a felony.





To add to this, the bill was originally written to ban the procedure of late term partial birth abortion in all cases. It was thought that the procedure would be unnecessarily cruel. In cases of incest, rape or other extenuating circumstance the ban was originally thought to still be in effect because there are other late term abortion methods which are not only safer for the mother...but less cruel to the partially born child as well.


They have also refused time and gain to set a limit on the time when procedures can be performed. They have also refused to allow for exceptions to protect the health and well-being of the mother.

Again, this was originally true with the first proposal. The reason it was written like that was to ban that one procedure (partial birth abortion) in all cases. The reason it was to be banned in all cases was because there are other late term procedures which would certainly still be able to be performed in cases to protect the health and well being of the mother. She would be able to chose the same outcome the entire time...only changing how the baby was aborted.

Since this time there have been provisions added that state that this procedure will still be performed
except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.. Seeing as how there are other (safer and more humane) methods of late term abortion...this really didn't need to be added.

Very clear...and very deliberate not to cross any line of taking away the right of a women to choose. It always left her with other avenues.


take care,

dan

JSE
10-27-2004, 05:12 AM
wow, some great points from both sides........the newly registered voter stampede will send Bush packing........


That's it?


JSE

nobody
10-27-2004, 06:07 AM
OK...last response to this topic. I don't wanna keep arguing in circles.

Anyway, the law is more vague in my estimation than yours. For example, "living fetus" can be interpreted in many different ways. Anti-choice groups define a living fetus as pretty much anything post-conception. So, what procedures would be prevented in addition to the one supposedly intended? There are many doctors that have voiced grave concerns as to what their liability would be when performing more routine procedures if these laws were to be inacted.

The failure to use accepted medical terminology is intentional. A slippery slope away from legal abortion is what is desired. The procedure the laws supposedly intended to describe can only be performed in late term pregnancies, so why is it a problem to mention the term? We both know why. It's because the laws are meant to start greasing the wheels for court interpretations that could have more wide-ranging efects.

Also, I would prefer a women and her doctor decide what cases may indeed be necessary for her health and safety, not some governmental body, driven by ideological concerns.

Again, I have to ask, if there is a commonly accepted medical term for the procedure wished to be banned and it is only performed at a certain term of the pregnancy, can you think of one good reason not to use the accepted term and duration if you really wish to ban one certain procedure?

piece-it pete
10-27-2004, 07:22 AM
Problem with your abortion agruement is that those who favor the laws against so-called "partial-birth" abortion refuse to use a proper medical term to describe the procedure in their legislation. They prefer to remain vague in order to have the greatest possible impact and perhaps impact further procedures. They have also refused time and gain to set a limit on the time when procedures can be performed. They have also refused to allow for exceptions to protect the health and well-being of the mother.
Stem-cell funding is the issue, if that's what you meant by do homework. Find a private-funded scientific medical organization that has the means to fund detailed research into anything outside the military (which gets giovernment supprot anyway).
And, if productivity gain is the sustainable reason for growing wages, why haven't they been going up? Productivity has. And the "we are much wealthier overall" is arguable if you are looking at the majority of citizens personal standard of living as a measure, which is what I look at.

The abortion issue has been well addressed by the fishin' guy, thanks Dan!

The stem-cell issue is similar, a LOT of intentional disinformation is being spread for political purposes.


SLANTING THE SCIENCE

By WESLEY J. SMITH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHOULD the government fund medical research that relies on the use of "stem cells" extracted from human embryos? This difficult moral decision would be a lot easier if the media weren't failing to tell the public the whole story.

Embryo-stem-cell research promises to produce medical miracles in a host of areas. But other research avenues - including the use of cells that don't come from human embryos - are also promising, perhaps more so. Unfortunately, journalists and editors haven't reported this news fully or fairly.

The Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), a non-partisan research organization devoted to the accurate use of scientific research in public-policy debates, has documented how journalists have fallen down on the job on this issue.

In its recent report "Stemming the News Flow?" STATS decried a "striking" selectivity in coverage: The media often play up embryonic-stem-cell breakthroughs while giving short shrift to equivalent (or even more promising) adult-stem-cell successes.

* In separate experiments, scientists researched the ability of embryonic and adult mouse pancreatic stem cells to regenerate the body's ability to make insulin. Both types of cells boosted insulin production in diabetic mice. The embryonic success made a big splash with prominent coverage in all major media outlets. Yet the same media organs were strangely silent about the research involving adult cells.

Stranger still, the adult-cell experiment was far more successful - it raised insulin levels much more. Indeed, those diabetic mice lived, while the mice treated with embryonic cells all died. Why did the media celebrate the less successful experiment and ignore the more successful one?

* Another barely reported story is that alternative-source stem cells are already healing human illnesses.

*In Los Angeles, the transplantation of stem cells harvested from umbilical-cord blood has saved the lives of three young boys born with defective immune systems.

*Rather than receiving bone marrow transplants, the three boys underwent stem cell therapy. The experimental procedure worked. Two years post-surgery, their doctors at UCLA Medical Center pronounced the boys cured.

*Last year, Israeli scientists implanted Melissa Holley's white blood cells into her spinal cord to treat the paraplegia caused when her spinal cord was severed in an auto accident. Melissa, who is 18, has since regained control over her bladder and recovered significant motor function in her limbs - she can now move her legs and toes, although she cannot yet walk.

This is exactly the kind of therapy that embryonic-stem-cell proponents promise - years down the road. Yet Melissa's breakthrough was met with collective yawns in the press with the exception of Canada's The Globe and Mail.

Non-embryonic stem cells may be as common as beach sand.

They have been successfully extracted from umbilical cord blood, placentas, fat, cadaver brains, bone marrow, and tissues of the spleen, pancreas, and other organs. Even more astounding, the scientists who cloned Dolly the sheep successfully created cow heart tissue using stem cells from cow skin. And just this week, Singapore scientists announced that they have transformed bone-marrow cells into heart muscle.

Research with these cells also has a distinct moral advantage: It doesn't require the destruction of a human embryo. You don't have to be pro-life to be more comfortable with that.

So why does the more ethically problematic research get such better press? Well, it sure looks like bias, conscious or not: Most reporters and editors call themselves pro-choice on abortion. And many see support of embryonic-stem-cell research as consistent with (or even supportive of) this point of view.

But abortion is actually quite beside the point in this debate - there is no pregnant woman being asked to gestate a child she does not want. Thus, one can both support abortion rights and oppose embryonic research without any inconsistency.

In the end, this debate turns on two questions. The tougher one is: Is such research immoral, since it destroys human life and transforms it into a mere commodity? The second: Can we reap equivalent medical benefits using alternative sources?

The answer to that seems to be "yes." If the press were doing its job, giving an honest answer to the "hard" question would be far less painful.

Attorney and consumer advocate Wesley J. Smith is the author of "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America."

If you check on Wesley J. Smith you will find that he has written four books with Nader, as well as a bunch of other stuff.

Productivity. You can't change the economy by flipping a switch! It cycles, and there isn't much you can do about it. Our usual responses to recessions are to lower interest rates, which makes money cheaper, and deficit spending, to "prime the pump". Increased productivity means we WILL earn more, soon.

Consider: if I make 1 widget per hour, and demand a raise, it will add cost to that widget. I may get the money for a while. But in a free market, someone else will make it for the original pay if they can. So the guy with the raise ends up with no job. But, if I can bump my production to 1-1/2 widgets an hour, I am making it possible for increased earnings without opening up a way for someone else, like China, to take my job. 'Cause we are more productive, we are worth more money. And this applies to all stages of business, from the factory floor to the management of capital.

Hmmm, in 1980, one TV (prolly 25"), maybe 2 phones, one car the norm (and ps, pb, fm stereo and a/c made it "loaded"), little houses built by todays' averages, how are we not more wealthy overall?

Pete

nobody
10-27-2004, 07:49 AM
We work more hours to afford our possesions. Most families have two full-time earners. We work longer hours and have less vacation than any other industrialized country outside Japan. I don't have time to look up stats, but I've seen several reports charting real income declining per capita for quite a time.

Personally, I'm also quite worried by the widening income gap, which with jobs being exported is going to just get worse. The retrain and get more education argument just doesn't hold water long term. We will not all be at the top of the ladder. There needs to be something more than "would you like fries with that?" for the masses.

Free markets are not always the answer. Go back to pre-labor law days and see how well that was working out.

OK...good points all around. But, I gotta stop this or I'll never get any actual work done and my per-capita income is gonna disappear.

dean_martin
10-27-2004, 08:03 AM
Hmmm, in 1980, one TV (prolly 25"), maybe 2 phones, one car the norm (and ps, pb, fm stereo and a/c made it "loaded"), little houses built by todays' averages, how are we not more wealthy overall?

Pete

One reason we are not more "wealthy", a term which includes both assets and liquidity, is personal debt. Yes, we have more stuff because we have evolved into a stuff-oriented people. But, on average, folks aren't paying cash for their stuff. We look wealthier, but on paper we're not. We can have it all today and it can all be repossessed tomorrow.

One fascinating (and disturbing) thing I've seen in our hobby lately is that the dollar just doesn't buy what it used to. The most concrete example I can give is the Pro-Ject Perspective turntable. This table is made in the Czech Republic. It had a list of $995 just 1 1/2 to 2 years ago. Its current list is $1295. That's a 33% increase. I don't follow the rise and fall of the dollar very often, but I did over the summer. My son went to Japan, which for the most part is a cash society. When the trip was planned last fall, you could buy 112 yen with one American dollar. When we got ready to convert our dollars to yen in May the ratio was 97 yen per dollar. When we converted the yen he had left back to dollars in July the ratio was 95 to one.

I think we're losing our buying power which increases personal debt. Of course avoiding debt requires will power, self control, etc., but as a nation we're not doing that.

BTW, I've started looking at products made in the US and Canada (VPI turntables, Totem speakers, etc.) instead of those made in Europe (the dollar obviously isn't doing well against the Euro) and Japan. I stress LOOKING because I don't want to use my credit card. I'm not very liquid right now.

FLZapped
10-27-2004, 09:07 AM
I'm not sure a ballot with every candidate is a good idea. We actually tried an open primary a few years ago here in CA. It lasted for 1 primary and then was declared unconstitutional ( state constitution ). It was truly open, in that anyone registered to any party could vote for anyone on the ballot. If the parties were unprincipled ( certainly plausible ) and organized properly ( questionable, at best ), liberals could vote for the least electable conservative and vice versa. At least with voters registered to a specific party voting for their candidates should pick the person that best represents their beliefs. While this leaves us ( from your post I assume you are of the "None" party ) out of the system, we can't influence 1 parties choice. We have to pick the one we like best of the 2 choices. Somewhat unfortunate for us, but better for Democracy in the long run. At least that is my thinking.


Considering the activist court you have out there, it comes with no shock value that they would find the new primary system unconstitutional as opposed to a law which restricted the right to vote.....

-Bruce

FLZapped
10-27-2004, 09:10 AM
Call it what you want but people are either against the practice or they are not. I don't care what it is called, I'm against it. What would you call it?

JSE

MURDER

FLZapped
10-27-2004, 09:19 AM
On a lighter note, a few words from Jay Leno......



In an interview in USA Today, Teresa Heinz Kerry said she didn't think Laura Bush, who was a public school librarian for nine years, had ever held a "real job." Let me tell you something -- if you're a librarian married to George W. Bush, there is no harder job on Earth. .... Both candidates are trying to scare voters for votes in the last weeks of the campaign. And they're doing a pretty good job. Voters are petrified that on November 2nd they're actually going to have to pick one of these guys. What's scarier than that? .... The town of Bloomfield, New Jersey, was holding a lottery to determine who would get a flu shot. It's terrible. And the winner doesn't even get the flu shot all at once. It's injected very slowly, once a year for 25 years. .... The Kerry campaign announced today they will have "10,000 lawyers at the polls in battle ground states." 10,000 lawyers. Well, let's hope you don't slip and fall on the sidewalk outside a polling place. You could be buried alive in business cards.


-Bruce

piece-it pete
10-27-2004, 09:31 AM
Discussions on politics get more heated than anything else. Well, maybe sports.

Go Steelers! Or, should I say Go Broncos? Just kidding. My best friend is a huge Browns fan. Those are the teams he hates most.

As far as the ads go, I can't honestly say. My television viewing consists mostly of the Discovery, History, and National Geographic channels. The only news program I watch is our local morning news show for the weather and traffic reports. Since it is early, I am barely awake enough to even catch those.

How is the weather in Cleveland? My girlfriend lived in Painesville for a couple of years, and grew up in Youngstown. She still complains about the weather 2.5 years after moving here. Of course, she is upset beacause it is going to only be in the 60's and may rain later here.

SRO,

Yep they sure can get interesting. My bro-in-law of 19 years, a good friend AND a Democrat (?) (lol), we get into some HEATED arguments. I've come to the conclusion that we like it :shrug: .

Yep the Steelers, our most traditional enemy, and the Broncos, they dashed our post season dreams many times!

That's a nice mix of shows. Regular programming-wise I watch the news, the Simpsons, sometimes King of the Hill. And the McLaughlin group - to yell at Eleanor (tough lady) and sometimes Buchanan, after friday tunes (got the neighbors "broken in" lol) and a couple of beers.

I read history/biographies by the boatload.

The commercials are fast and furious. Mud. But the same story - Reps are stupid/evil and Dems are weak/liers. Over and over and over. And over.

Sometimes I think we're ALL pretty dumb.

The weather here yesterday was - low 60s' and scattered showers! Today has been a beautiful fall day, sunny and low '70s (quite unseasonable). Where are you at?

Pete

FLZapped
10-27-2004, 09:44 AM
Do I think Kerry is a perfect candidate? Absolutely not. But, to me the differences I just mentioned are more than enough for me to desire a change. and I didn't even mention Bush's deceptive policies around Iraq and the mess he's created over there.


Speaking about deceptive:



Federalist Patriot No. 04-42

Among Kerry's released records is a 1977 cover letter from Jimmy Carter's Navy Secretary, W. Graham Claytor. What is revealing about this document is that it notes Kerry's original discharge was subject to review by a "board of officers" -- yet no such review should be necessary for an Honorable Discharge.

The review was conducted in accordance with "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163," which pertains to grounds for involuntary separation from military service.

As many Vietnam veterans who served their nation with dignity and honor will recall, Jimmy Carter's first official act as president was the signing of Executive Order 4483 --less than an hour after his inauguration on 21 January 1977. EO 4483 provided general amnesty for draft evaders, war protesters and other offenders of that era. Its corresponding, and equally dubious, DoD directive took effect in March of 1977, expanding that amnesty to include separation from military service by other than honorable discharges. The DoD specified an appeal procedure whereby discharges could be reviewed on an individual basis to determine whether the status of a particular discharge could be revised.

Having lost his first bid for Congress, Kerry no doubt decided that his political future would be brighter as a war hero rather than a war protestor. While there are several categories of discharges beneath honorable, including general, medical, bad conduct and other than honorable, it is very likely that Kerry's discharge was dishonorable.

Supporting this assertion is the fact that Kerry had all his medals mysteriously reinstated in 1985. He claims that he lost his medal certificates (perhaps these are what he famously threw over that Capitol fence in protest), but when a military officer is subject to a Dishonorable Discharge, in addition to the loss of pay benefits and allowances, all medals and honors are revoked. In any case, it would be a cinch for John Kerry to refute our claim by simply signing that Standard Form 180. But he won't. Nor will hard-hitting journalists like Katie Couric and Dr. Phil press him on this issue.

Thus, while Kerry can correctly say -- thanks to Jimmy Carter -- that he received an Honorable Discharge, he could also say with equal precision that he received a Dishonorable Discharge. His activities as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were, indeed, forgiven by Carter's EO 4483 and the subsequent DoD directive.

-Bruce

SRO
10-27-2004, 09:45 AM
Considering the activist court you have out there, it comes with no shock value that they would find the new primary system unconstitutional as opposed to a law which restricted the right to vote.....

-Bruce

I would have to research it, but a few posts back, someone mentioned that the primary system is run by the parties. If this is true then they should be able to restrict ( or allow ) whoever they want to be able to vote in the primary. Also, I am not sure how it could be called unconstitutional either, as it is not a state or federal issue. Perhaps my memory is bad, and it was not a constitutional issue. It could be that they did not like the process and changed it. I just know that when I voted this spring, I didn't get the choice.

The funny thing is that just last night I saw an ad for Prop. 62. It is to allow open primaries in CA. I re-registered late and have not received my voter guide. I guess we will see what happens next week. I didn't think I would have to consider it.

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?

SRO
10-27-2004, 09:59 AM
SRO,

Yep they sure can get interesting. My bro-in-law of 19 years, a good friend AND a Democrat (?) (lol), we get into some HEATED arguments. I've come to the conclusion that we like it :shrug: .

Yep the Steelers, our most traditional enemy, and the Broncos, they dashed our post season dreams many times!

That's a nice mix of shows. Regular programming-wise I watch the news, the Simpsons, sometimes King of the Hill. And the McLaughlin group - to yell at Eleanor (tough lady) and sometimes Buchanan, after friday tunes (got the neighbors "broken in" lol) and a couple of beers.

I read history/biographies by the boatload.

The commercials are fast and furious. Mud. But the same story - Reps are stupid/evil and Dems are weak/liers. Over and over and over. And over.

Sometimes I think we're ALL pretty dumb.

The weather here yesterday was - low 60s' and scattered showers! Today has been a beautiful fall day, sunny and low '70s (quite unseasonable). Where are you at?

Pete

Don't tell my girl about the weather, she might want to go back. Mostly sunny here today, but chilly. I think our projected high is 62.

I'm a "soaker". A self imposed title after Bush Sr. called Lindh ( or was it his parents ) "just another Marin County hot tubber". In San Rafael, just north of SF.

By the way, I don't own a hot tub. It would be a tight fit in a 600 square foot condo.

What is your beer situation there. I have several micro's within 30 minutes that all produce excellent brews. One of the things I really like about the area. I was just back home ( Alabama ), and wow, not much to choose from.

piece-it pete
10-27-2004, 10:24 AM
OK...good points all around. But, I gotta stop this or I'll never get any actual work done and my per-capita income is gonna disappear.

lol! You win the "best comment of the day" prize - you get to keep your job!

Pete

FLZapped
10-27-2004, 11:12 AM
I would have to research it, but a few posts back, someone mentioned that the primary system is run by the parties. If this is true then they should be able to restrict ( or allow ) whoever they want to be able to vote in the primary. Also, I am not sure how it could be called unconstitutional either, as it is not a state or federal issue. Perhaps my memory is bad, and it was not a constitutional issue. It could be that they did not like the process and changed it. I just know that when I voted this spring, I didn't get the choice.

The funny thing is that just last night I saw an ad for Prop. 62. It is to allow open primaries in CA. I re-registered late and have not received my voter guide. I guess we will see what happens next week. I didn't think I would have to consider it.

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?


Boy, I hope not! All elections here are put on by the county office of elections.....I hope the parties don't have anything to do with it other than presenting their candidates!

-Bruce

SRO
10-27-2004, 11:24 AM
Boy, I hope not! All elections here are put on by the county office of elections.....I hope the parties don't have anything to do with it other than presenting their candidates!

-Bruce

It was Dean_Martin who said the parties were responsible. Maybe he is around and could clear it up.

What I got from re-reading his post ( #88 in this thread ) was that the parties are to present the rules they wnat to use to pick their candidate. I assume the county board of elections agrees or disagrees.

Dean?

piece-it pete
10-27-2004, 12:36 PM
I would have to research it, but a few posts back, someone mentioned that the primary system is run by the parties. If this is true then they should be able to restrict ( or allow ) whoever they want to be able to vote in the primary. Also, I am not sure how it could be called unconstitutional either, as it is not a state or federal issue. Perhaps my memory is bad, and it was not a constitutional issue. It could be that they did not like the process and changed it. I just know that when I voted this spring, I didn't get the choice.

The funny thing is that just last night I saw an ad for Prop. 62. It is to allow open primaries in CA. I re-registered late and have not received my voter guide. I guess we will see what happens next week. I didn't think I would have to consider it.

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?

Not to jump Deans' answer but I too believe the primary system is run by the parties, which makes sense to me.

Ohio has open primaries. Honestly it DOESN'T make sense to me. Why should I be able to vote for the Dems' candidate?

Activist court = one that legislates from the bench. Most are liberal. Some are conservative. All are tyrants!

Pete

dean_martin
10-27-2004, 12:42 PM
I would have to research it, but a few posts back, someone mentioned that the primary system is run by the parties. If this is true then they should be able to restrict ( or allow ) whoever they want to be able to vote in the primary. Also, I am not sure how it could be called unconstitutional either, as it is not a state or federal issue. Perhaps my memory is bad, and it was not a constitutional issue. It could be that they did not like the process and changed it. I just know that when I voted this spring, I didn't get the choice.

The funny thing is that just last night I saw an ad for Prop. 62. It is to allow open primaries in CA. I re-registered late and have not received my voter guide. I guess we will see what happens next week. I didn't think I would have to consider it.

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?

It is true that the primary process is a political process, not a legal one. The primary process by which a party's nominee is selected is determined by that party. Your Constitutional right to vote really attaches during a general election. However, gov't funds and election officials are used to give effect to a primary election. Because it's a political process and limits on our right to vote are not subject to strict scrutiny in primaries, states and their state party leaders are allowed to tinker with the process. For example, Iowa has caucuses. Louisiana has an open election for all candidates which usually results in a run-off. And, California can attempt to amend its constitution or adopt a law calling for open primaries. It would be interesting to see if such a law would stand if challenged on the ground that the parties have the right to select their nominees in the manner they choose. Finally, you can be left out of the primary process all together if you don't declare a party affliliation.

To your next point regarding activist judges, I would like to provide an example of a conservative/pro-Republican court taking an activist position. During the debates, Bush said he would select "strict constructionists" as judicial nominees. One of his selections for the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit was Bill Pryor, former Attorney General of my home state of Alabama. The 11th Circuit covers Alabama, Florida and Georgia. Bush's appointment of Pryor came during a Senate break for a long holiday weekend. Bush attempted to skirt the Senate advice and consent clause by using the recess appointment clause of the constitution. The Recess Appointment clause states in its entirety as follows:

The President shall have Power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. (Capitalization in original.)

One issue was whether the President has the power to fill vacancies that occur during the Recess of the Senate, or does he have the power to fill vacancies during a recess no matter when they happen? Another issue was whether a long holiday weekend constitutes the Recess of the Senate. How do you think a strict constructionist judge would answer the first question? The 11th Circuit, which is considered one of the 2 or 3 most conservative circuits in the country, said that it didn't matter when the vacancy occurrs. They also said that a long holiday weekend is a recess even though the constitution makes a distinction between the end of "the" Session and an adjournment during a session. Why would a President who says he is pro-strict constructionist try to expand his authority beyond the plain language of the recess appointments clause?

SRO
10-27-2004, 12:54 PM
The reason I asked this question is that "activist" seems to only get attached to anything liberal. I have never heard the Christian Coalition called activist.

Dean:

How are things going with the hurricane clean up? I was actuallu supposed to be in Ft. Walton for my cousins wedding earlier this month. The hotel we were to stay at is still closed, I believe until November 15th. Glad you made it through relatively unscathed.

dean_martin
10-27-2004, 01:13 PM
The reason I asked this question is that "activist" seems to only get attached to anything liberal. I have never heard the Christian Coalition called activist.

Dean:

How are things going with the hurricane clean up? I was actuallu supposed to be in Ft. Walton for my cousins wedding earlier this month. The hotel we were to stay at is still closed, I believe until November 15th. Glad you made it through relatively unscathed.


Thanks for asking! We're doing well. It's been slow and on some streets you can't see the houses for all the debris piled up in yards. But, no one was injured during the storm. I posted some pictures over in the gallery section, but we've come a long way since then. We know some people in Pensacola near the water who are going to go through rough times for a while.

On a related topic, I've dogged insurance companies pretty hard here in the off topic forum, but I hope by the end of this week I'll be able to say some nice things about mine!

gonefishin
10-27-2004, 04:16 PM
Hi again Nobody


Hi Nobody,





Anyway, the law is more vague in my estimation than yours. For example, "living fetus" can be interpreted in many different ways. Anti-choice groups define a living fetus as pretty much anything post-conception. So, what procedures would be prevented in addition to the one supposedly intended? There are many doctors that have voiced grave concerns as to what their liability would be when performing more routine procedures if these laws were to be inacted.

Again, I would disagree. A living fetus is one with a heartbeat and brain activity consistent with a healthy fetus of the same term.

You asked, What procedures would be prevented in addition? None. The whole reason for this law was to stop one procedure which appeared as cruel, while giving the mother other choices for abortion in the late term. Only this procedure would have a ban...she could still have other late term abortions performed.


The failure to use accepted medical terminology is intentional. A slippery slope away from legal abortion is what is desired. The procedure the laws supposedly intended to describe can only be performed in late term pregnancies, so why is it a problem to mention the term? We both know why. It's because the laws are meant to start greasing the wheels for court interpretations that could have more wide-ranging effects.


What term? beyond 20 weeks' gestation



Actually, the AMA and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists both equate "partial birth abortion" with the procedure "intact D&X". below is a description As described by the American College of Obstetricians


this method of abortion includes the following four

elements:

1. Deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a

sequence of days;

2. Instrumental conversion of the fetus to a footling breech;

3. Breech extraction of the body excepting the head;

4. Partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a living

fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact

fetus.




not clear? not accepted medical terminology?

yes, it is both clear and accepted terminology describing one late term abortion procedure.

I wonder if there are any drawings or video out there illustrating this procedure. Read it again, paying particular attention to step two, three and four.

Dialation and delivery is induced, resulting in a baby that has started to deliver. The baby is then turned "backwards" with instruments so it delivers breech. The legs, buttocks, torso and shoulders are presenting outside of the vagina. After the body has been delivered and the head is still inside, the head is partially evacuated of parts of it's brains. After this is done, the delivery of the head is completed.







Also, I would prefer a women and her doctor decide what cases may indeed be necessary for her health and safety, not some governmental body, driven by ideological concerns.

Again...the original bill was set up to ban one procedure, leaving all other abortion procedures in tact. Including alternative late term procedures excluding only the one intact D&X procedure. Again, your "wanted" provision has actually been written into the bill. But this was really didn't need to be done. The way the bill was written originally, it was clear that this one procedure would be banned. There are currently other procedures that are just as effective and safe for the mother that would be performed in cases such as health and well being...without partially delivering the baby and then Partial evacuation of the intracranial contents.



Again, I have to ask, if there is a commonly accepted medical term for the procedure wished to be banned and it is only performed at a certain term of the pregnancy, can you think of one good reason not to use the accepted term and duration if you really wish to ban one certain procedure?

This is what could be so frustrating about discussions on the topic. The bill actually is quite direct in describing what the procedure is, and that other procedures would still be untouched...and able to be performed. Only the partial birth (intact D&X) is being considered to be banned...women could still have other late term procedures performed, such as labor induction or by D&E.

The procedure is called "intact D&X procedure", which is referred to by politicians as late term partial birth abortion. I suppose calling it intact D&X doesn't paint the same picture in peoples minds.



dan

FLZapped
10-28-2004, 07:34 AM
I wou

By the way, is a court only activist if they have what is considered to be a liberal bent?

No, they generate law, rather than interpret it.

-Bruce

piece-it pete
10-28-2004, 09:02 AM
Don't tell my girl about the weather, she might want to go back. Mostly sunny here today, but chilly. I think our projected high is 62.

I'm a "soaker". A self imposed title after Bush Sr. called Lindh ( or was it his parents ) "just another Marin County hot tubber". In San Rafael, just north of SF.

By the way, I don't own a hot tub. It would be a tight fit in a 600 square foot condo.

What is your beer situation there. I have several micro's within 30 minutes that all produce excellent brews. One of the things I really like about the area. I was just back home ( Alabama ), and wow, not much to choose from.

Dang soakers!

I haven't got into the microbrews too much, though to me there seems to be a lot (best Cleveland name: Burning River Brew, runnerup: Old Leghumper :) ), still working though the imports and new to me out of states.

Tried St Peters' Old Porter last night, it has a kick like a mule. When in Virginny recently I tried "Old Dominion" Stout on tap, amazing, perhaps the darkest thickest beer I've ever had, almost chocolatey, hope I can find it locally. The best I've had lately overall would be "Old Speckled Hen", been around a while but now in those charged tallboy cans like Guiness - very good!

Can't get a real English Bitter here to save your life! John Smith, where are you?

At least we all can agree on one thing! Or can we? Miller! Bud! Tastes great! Less filling! Arrrgh...

Man I'm glad the elections' soon.

Pete

SRO
10-28-2004, 09:42 AM
Dang soakers!

I haven't got into the microbrews too much, though to me there seems to be a lot (best Cleveland name: Burning River Brew, runnerup: Old Leghumper :) ), still working though the imports and new to me out of states.

Tried St Peters' Old Porter last night, it has a kick like a mule. When in Virginny recently I tried "Old Dominion" Stout on tap, amazing, perhaps the darkest thickest beer I've ever had, almost chocolatey, hope I can find it locally. The best I've had lately overall would be "Old Speckled Hen", been around a while but now in those charged tallboy cans like Guiness - very good!

Can't get a real English Bitter here to save your life! John Smith, where are you?

At least we all can agree on one thing! Or can we? Miller! Bud! Tastes great! Less filling! Arrrgh...

Man I'm glad the elections' soon.

Pete

I try my best to avoid Bud, Miller, etc. Had to settle for them on a camping trip last year. My buddy works at one of my local micro's, and we went through 15 gallons of his the first day. I should say there were 14 of us. The local store only had Bud and Bud Light. At least it was really hot during the day, and the snowmelt in the river kept them really cold.

My friend brews a scotch ale called Kiltlifter. It's one of the best named locals, and a darn good brew too. It doesn't take many to get the kilt up. Another is the Whamber, which is appropriately named as well.

All right, now that is out of the way, back to the tub!

jeskibuff
11-01-2004, 05:40 AM
Darn...why do I get myself into things that I don't have time to respond to? :roll: dean_martin's pieced-together post demanded rebutting, but it's quite an effort to gather the information for a proper debunking, so that leads to further procrastination. Not to mention the fact that it was a discombobulated mish-mash of cut-and-paste operations. Anyway, I'll try to cover some lost ground here, but I'm posting this knowing that I left out a lot of what I wanted to put in:


Kerry supporters sure are a lot righter - even though they're left.

OK, so that's not that funny, sue me.Maybe THIS explains it better: :D
http://img55.exs.cx/img55/7710/BCcartoon.gif


The above is the type of vile and vulgar stuff that is made up of distortions and personal attacks.Vile and vulgar? Wow, if that ain't calling the kettle black! I've seen nothing but vile and vulgar out of the rabid left for 4 years now. Distortions and personal attacks? Sorry, but so far the Swiftees get the points for their veracity and Kerry suffers the consequences. Kerry's had to admit that his own words were untrue ("I was in Cambodia in Christmas 1968 when Nixon said we had no troops in Cambodia"). It appears that Kerry follows the example of Slick Willie, lie all you can until they've got you cornered. When the blue dress appears, just slither away. Your constituency will conveniently sweep the whole thing under the rug. Kerry's own accounts contradict his own accounts. The man tells so many lies it's impossible to keep track of them, but those details aren't important, are they? He's a DEMOCRAT and the end objective justifies the lies, doesn't it?? :rolleyes: Vile and vulgar? There's nothing vile and vulgar about wanting to warn the country before it stupidly elects a fraud, liar and traitor to the Presidency. Don't shoot the messengers - shoot down the message, but you can't, can you? The evidence is just too damning.


Although the word "Republican" does not appear in the ad, the group's financing is highly partisan.Well it only makes sense that if a group such as the Swiftees have a message that they feel needs to get out, they'll need funding to make it happen. Certainly the information is damaging to Kerry, so why would any Democrat who supports Kerry contribute to the effort? Naturally, most funding came from Republicans! That's one for the DUH files! It certainly doesn't mean the message is any less worthy of being heard.


And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.Well, the AAR (After Action Report) was written up by John Kerry, so has the "enemy fire" on a document. Thurlow accepted that award:

My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting. . . . I am here to state that we weren't under fire."Yeah, there's an inaccuracy in the report, caused by Kerry. Still, Thurlow performed an action that deserved his award. It was just glorified and "enhanced" by someone who wanted to create his own "war hero" fantasy, starring himself, John F'n Kerry.


It was signed by Elliott.Who read it and assumed that it was true. Elliot wasn't there. He relied on the report from the Commander In Charge (Kerry). He later found out that actual events didn't jive with Kerry's report, so he later regretted signing the citation created from a falsified report.


None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat.They didn't HAVE to be on Kerry's boat. The Swiftees operated in packs. Several boats would patrol together and coordinate their efforts. They would do many other things together when off the boats. It's like a team of fighter pilots. There may be only two men to a plane, but they know each other quite well, train together, and fight together.


And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.Not ALL who served under him. Kerry's accounts are even contrary to Kerry's accounts. As said before, so far Kerry's accounts are the only ones which have been thoroughly discredited. That's tough to do in this kind of "he said/she said" kind of account, especially given the 30-year span of time.


Jim Rassmann was the Army Special Forces lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water. Rassmann has said all along that he was under sniper fire from both banks of the river when Kerry, wounded, helped him aboard.
.
Rassmann: Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.
.
When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there.There were 5 Swift boats that were involved in this incident. Only Kerry and Rassman say there was enemy fire, and Rassman by his own admission spent a lot of time holding his breath on the bottom of the river. That doesn't make him a very good eyewitness, does it?


Elliott is the retired Navy captain who had recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star
.
Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier.
.
yada yada yadaAll of Elliott's "backpedalling" was because he initially trusted Kerry's report. As time passed, he was made aware of the events as they REALLY happened, which didn't correspond to Kerry's accounts. Yes, he may have awarded Kerry the Silver Star, but that was because Kerry did such a fine snow job on him.


Elliott also says in that second affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." That statement is misleading, however. It mischaracterizes the actual basis on which Kerry received his decoration.Try as they might to make this sound like Elliott "mischaracterizing" things, he is simply saying that he would not have awarded Kerry the medal for what ACTUALLY happened. It is the result of the typical liberal mind being unable to comprehend the written word. Also, Kerry's "decision to attack" was somewhat cowardly as well. He was in command of 3 Swift boats, and he was in the second boat to land. The crew of the first boat had the hardest task and faced the most danger. Kerry landed when their work was pretty much over with. He jumped out and pursued a scared and wounded teenager, shooting him in the back. There was no mention of the heroics of the crew of the first boat. After all, Kerry wrote the report.

Incidentally, beaching the Swift Boats was NOT a recommended strategy. Their firepower was in the back of the boat and once beached they lost their advantage: their ability to quickly maneuver. Kerry's strategy was reckless endangerment of his crew.


Elliott now feels differently, and says he has come to believe Kerry didn't deserve his second award for valor, either, based only on what the other anti-Kerry veterans have told him.Quite simply, Elliott had no reason to doubt the lie that Kerry had spoonfed him 35 years ago. It wasn't until Kerry began campaigning for the Presidency that the Swiftees organized and Elliott found out the truth.


In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters.This explanation is pretty laughable in its desperate attempt to salvage some credit for this "Purple Owie". So Kerry is either too weak or too stupid to put himself and crew at a proper distance before blowing up the rice bin. So even though HE threw the grenade, they try to claim it's a "friendly fire" incident? Gawd, that's a stretch! Then the wounds are treated with band-aids and he demands a Purple Heart. No sutures. No hospital stay! That should tell you something right there. True soldiers would wince at the thought of demanding medals of honor for superficial wounds.

piece-it pete
11-01-2004, 07:15 AM
jes,

Great post! I didn't know about the right and left wing thing.

One thing that has bothered me about the Swift Boat vet ads - no one ever says they're not GOP ads, they're really military-backed, in response for Kerry basically, well, screwing the military after he came home.

Which is an indisputable fact. And that won't matter as Commander-in-Chief??! I still don't understand how the Dems ended up running Kerry at such a nasty time in the world.

Do you live in a swing state? The Clinton commercials are playing almost non-stop on the R&B stations here, talking about how the evil GOP has stopped them from voting all these years. They have a lawsuit hotline setup for those who feel disenfrancised by, say, not being registered or going to the wrong polling place. Oh and I've heard talk that a percentage of Blacks are breaking from the Dems and voting Bush 'cause of gay "marriage".

We do not stand alone.

Have you heard the ads with Ed Koch endorsing Bush? How about Arafat coming out for Kerry lol. That'll put him over the top from the bus-bombing vote!


SRO,

Kiltlifter lol.

15 gallons? It's good you mentioned 14 guys!

Pete

dean_martin
11-01-2004, 07:45 AM
Darn...why do I get myself into things that I don't have time to respond to? :roll: dean_martin's pieced-together post demanded rebutting, but it's quite an effort to gather the information for a proper debunking, so that leads to further procrastination. Not to mention the fact that it was a discombobulated mish-mash of cut-and-paste operations. Anyway, I'll try to cover some lost ground here, but I'm posting this knowing that I left out a lot of what I wanted to put in:

Maybe THIS explains it better: :D
http://img55.exs.cx/img55/7710/BCcartoon.gif

Vile and vulgar? Wow, if that ain't calling the kettle black! I've seen nothing but vile and vulgar out of the rabid left for 4 years now. Distortions and personal attacks? Sorry, but so far the Swiftees get the points for their veracity and Kerry suffers the consequences. Kerry's had to admit that his own words were untrue ("I was in Cambodia in Christmas 1968 when Nixon said we had no troops in Cambodia"). It appears that Kerry follows the example of Slick Willie, lie all you can until they've got you cornered. When the blue dress appears, just slither away. Your constituency will conveniently sweep the whole thing under the rug. Kerry's own accounts contradict his own accounts. The man tells so many lies it's impossible to keep track of them, but those details aren't important, are they? He's a DEMOCRAT and the end objective justifies the lies, doesn't it?? :rolleyes: Vile and vulgar? There's nothing vile and vulgar about wanting to warn the country before it stupidly elects a fraud, liar and traitor to the Presidency. Don't shoot the messengers - shoot down the message, but you can't, can you? The evidence is just too damning.

Well it only makes sense that if a group such as the Swiftees have a message that they feel needs to get out, they'll need funding to make it happen. Certainly the information is damaging to Kerry, so why would any Democrat who supports Kerry contribute to the effort? Naturally, most funding came from Republicans! That's one for the DUH files! It certainly doesn't mean the message is any less worthy of being heard.

Well, the AAR (After Action Report) was written up by John Kerry, so has the "enemy fire" on a document. Thurlow accepted that award:
Yeah, there's an inaccuracy in the report, caused by Kerry. Still, Thurlow performed an action that deserved his award. It was just glorified and "enhanced" by someone who wanted to create his own "war hero" fantasy, starring himself, John F'n Kerry.

Who read it and assumed that it was true. Elliot wasn't there. He relied on the report from the Commander In Charge (Kerry). He later found out that actual events didn't jive with Kerry's report, so he later regretted signing the citation created from a falsified report.

They didn't HAVE to be on Kerry's boat. The Swiftees operated in packs. Several boats would patrol together and coordinate their efforts. They would do many other things together when off the boats. It's like a team of fighter pilots. There may be only two men to a plane, but they know each other quite well, train together, and fight together.

Not ALL who served under him. Kerry's accounts are even contrary to Kerry's accounts. As said before, so far Kerry's accounts are the only ones which have been thoroughly discredited. That's tough to do in this kind of "he said/she said" kind of account, especially given the 30-year span of time.

There were 5 Swift boats that were involved in this incident. Only Kerry and Rassman say there was enemy fire, and Rassman by his own admission spent a lot of time holding his breath on the bottom of the river. That doesn't make him a very good eyewitness, does it?

All of Elliott's "backpedalling" was because he initially trusted Kerry's report. As time passed, he was made aware of the events as they REALLY happened, which didn't correspond to Kerry's accounts. Yes, he may have awarded Kerry the Silver Star, but that was because Kerry did such a fine snow job on him.

Try as they might to make this sound like Elliott "mischaracterizing" things, he is simply saying that he would not have awarded Kerry the medal for what ACTUALLY happened. It is the result of the typical liberal mind being unable to comprehend the written word. Also, Kerry's "decision to attack" was somewhat cowardly as well. He was in command of 3 Swift boats, and he was in the second boat to land. The crew of the first boat had the hardest task and faced the most danger. Kerry landed when their work was pretty much over with. He jumped out and pursued a scared and wounded teenager, shooting him in the back. There was no mention of the heroics of the crew of the first boat. After all, Kerry wrote the report.

Incidentally, beaching the Swift Boats was NOT a recommended strategy. Their firepower was in the back of the boat and once beached they lost their advantage: their ability to quickly maneuver. Kerry's strategy was reckless endangerment of his crew.

Quite simply, Elliott had no reason to doubt the lie that Kerry had spoonfed him 35 years ago. It wasn't until Kerry began campaigning for the Presidency that the Swiftees organized and Elliott found out the truth.

This explanation is pretty laughable in its desperate attempt to salvage some credit for this "Purple Owie". So Kerry is either too weak or too stupid to put himself and crew at a proper distance before blowing up the rice bin. So even though HE threw the grenade, they try to claim it's a "friendly fire" incident? Gawd, that's a stretch! Then the wounds are treated with band-aids and he demands a Purple Heart. No sutures. No hospital stay! That should tell you something right there. True soldiers would wince at the thought of demanding medals of honor for superficial wounds.

None of your stuff is backed up. I simply posted the article from www.factcheck.org which contains references to sources both official and personal.

I spoke with a veteran on Friday who flew helicopters in Vietnam. He's a former judge and currently is one of the better mediators in my area. I asked him what his feelings were about Kerry and the attacks that have come against him by the "Swifties". He said they were doing a disservice to Kerry and others who served. He then began to relate the story of how he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for a risky mission. He also told of other missions which were more dangerous for which he received nothing. When he received the Distinguished Flying Cross, he took no fire. But, he had to fly through a fog bank at low altitude and at a slow speed to reach a tank that had hit a mine. He was exposed to danger and was a sitting duck for enemy fire but took none.

You know your point-by-point analysis of the factcheck.org article is, with all due respect, stupid. The one that jumps out is your dismissing Rassman's account because he was holding his breath at the bottom of the river. Why do you think he was doing that? Regardless, he and Kerry both were exposed to danger. That says enough for me.

Look, I was born in 1968. Obviously, I didn't serve in Vietnam. If you did, or even if you didn't but are in the military now, or have been, would you please say so. (If you already have I apologize for missing it.) These attacks against the decisions young men made during that era (including those against Clinton, Bush and Kerry) will not sway my opinions. In fact, I find them unseemly for many reasons. So, I'm not defending Kerry with unsupported summaries of "what really happened." I'm not criticizing Bush either. If the US military or guard was officially pleased with their service (when applicable) then I have no criticism. And, after talking to a vet, I think the swift boat ads may be backfiring with many veterans. Finally, I do know that the swift boat ads came from heavy Bush supporters out of Texas and I do have experience with Karl Rove's tactics in my state. These ads have his signature.

I'll cut you some slack if you're military (a "true soldier" to use your words) and I'll stop responding to your unsupported accusations. In other words, I'll even let you have the last say. But, until you step up, I'll keep calling you out.

P.S. your implication that Kerry didn't deserve a Purple Heart for the grenade incident is contradicted by the refernece/link in the factcheck.org article that explains the requirements for the award. Just because some "true soldiers" wouldn't accept or apply for it doesn't mean he didn't qualify. You're imposing a higher standard than the one the military imposes. That's where all of these anti-Kerry and anti-Bush attacks on military service fall apart for me. They all seek to impose some superhuman, Rambo war hero standard on regular folks trying to survive a difficult era and perform their duties at the same time.

piece-it pete
11-01-2004, 08:29 AM
Hate to butt in again :D, but...

His actual actions in Vietnam are not really provable. He did get the medals.

But his subsequent actions are a matter of public record. Is there a Vietnam vet here that will second his accusations? Did you'all really rape, kill, maim and torture innocent civilians as a matter of course?

And WHY WON'T HE RELEASE HIS MILITARY RECORDS?! He MUST have something to hide.

Pete

Feanor
11-01-2004, 10:06 AM
...
Conclusion

The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.
The world, not to mention Americans, needs that result.

I'm Canadian but I don't pretend to be unbiased. As never before perhaps, Americans are deceived and self-deceived in this election race.

The pathetic, ridiculous debate about whether Kerry flip-flopped on this or that issue, much less whether he was such a war hero as has been made out, is diversion. Yet I suppose many American see these non-issues as somehow important. Americans, see the big picture!

Focus on the fundamental issue: do you want an America dedicated to the protection of narrow, short-term personal and corporate self-interest, (viz. greed), or to personal freedom and opportunity, and a better world.

One of the more appalling aspects in this race is the polarization a long religious lines: "conservative Christian", (Catholic and Protestant), versus everything and everyone else. Again, I'm not unbiased: "Christian Right" is an oxymoron. Conservative Christianity in the US is Pharisaic, that is, like the self-centred, self-righteousness of the Biblical Pharisees whom Christ condemned. Were I not a religious sceptic, I'd greatly fear that they have not accepted Christ's true message and hence will go straight to hell. Won't they be surprised, though!

On the Iraq issue, to be completely pragmatic, Bush made America and the World much less safe, rather more so. by the invasion. It's not just whether the money and lives would have been better spent on fighting Bin Laden.

piece-it pete
11-01-2004, 11:21 AM
I certainly respect you and your fellow Canadians, proven good friends of ours.

But.

:D

Opinion! So:


The world, not to mention Americans, needs that result.

The world needs leadership. Were are they going to get it? France?



I'm Canadian but I don't pretend to be unbiased. As never before perhaps, Americans are deceived and self-deceived in this election race.

The pathetic, ridiculous debate about whether Kerry flip-flopped on this or that issue, much less whether he was such a war hero as has been made out, is diversion. Yet I suppose many American see these non-issues as somehow important. Americans, see the big picture!

I appreciate your candor. Many now pass themselves off as independents.

We heard about character being a non-issue before, and became the laughingstock of the world there for a while.

Don't judge him by his RECORD, judge him by what he's saying now?

Fight for a guy that called you a baby-killer, let alone respect him?


Focus on the fundamental issue: do you want an America dedicated to the protection of narrow, short-term personal and corporate self-interest, (viz. greed), or to personal freedom and opportunity, and a better world..

Then by all means vote in the super-rich, THEY'LL protect you from the merely wealthy!

And Bush freed the Iraqis from the Butcher. No hollow talk, that.


One of the more appalling aspects in this race is the polarization a long religious lines: "conservative Christian", (Catholic and Protestant), versus everything and everyone else. Again, I'm not unbiased: "Christian Right" is an oxymoron. Conservative Christianity in the US is Pharisaic, that is, like the self-centred, self-righteousness of the Biblical Pharisees whom Christ condemned. Were I not a religious sceptic, I'd greatly fear that they have not accepted Christ's true message and hence will go straight to hell. Won't they be surprised, though!.

Christians didn't just desert the Dems, they were thrown out. Search "christian" at www.democraticunderground.org to see what I mean.

Jesus will vote for abortion on demand? Gay "marriages"? And our God does not shy away from terror nor condemn the soldier for doing his job.

If you are not a Christian, how can you decide, with authority, who is?

If I called you a hypocritical bigot, wouldn't you be offended?


On the Iraq issue, to be completely pragmatic, Bush made America and the World much less safe, rather more so. by the invasion. It's not just whether the money and lives would have been better spent on fighting Bin Laden.

Big picture, or Bin Laden? Old Binnie has been holed up for years now, while we take out the Al Qida still operating, and tie up their resources in Iraq. It's been VERY successful - we haven't been hit again.

Pete

Feanor
11-01-2004, 01:43 PM
Indeed it does, piece-it. US-bashing happens in Canada, but deep down most Canadians have a profound respect for Americans and America. Canadians and people of many other nations would be glad if the US were providing that needed leadership.

But there's a difference between leading and throwing your weight around. The US has forfeited the moral high ground. Arabs have believed this for years on account of US' unqualified support for Israel vs. Palestinians. The rest of the world is coming around to the same opinion, (Tony Blair excepted, of course).

Though I'm a religious skeptic, I had a religious upbringing and understand Christian theology quite well for a layman. I am therefore as qualified as a pious person to hold an opinion regarding Christian ethics. Call me a hypocrite if you like, I'm not chagrined. Personally I think reasonable interpretation of the Bible does not supports Gay marriage nor abortion. But how great am I if I ban these things but leave people sick and starving in the streets: to me that's hypocracy.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-01-2004, 03:11 PM
Though I'm a religious skeptic, I had a religious upbringing and understand Christian theology quite well for a layman. I am therefore as qualified as a pious person to hold an opinion regarding Christian ethics. Call me a hypocrite if you like, I'm not chagrined. Personally I think reasonable interpretation of the Bible does not supports Gay marriage nor abortion. But how great am I if I ban these things but leave people sick and starving in the streets: to me that's hypocracy.

Feanor, with all due respect to a fellow christian brother, the bible mentions nothing about same sex marriage, nor abortion. The bible is VERY clear about what God doesn't like, but same sex marriage was not an issue in biblical times, this is a recent issue.

I believe that God gives us choices. We have a choice to serve him, or not. Each choice has repercussions(good or bad). What we as man think is wrong, may not be wrong in Gods eyesight. Remember, as high as the heavens are from the earth, are his thought from ours. Men look on the outside, God searches the heart. We must be careful in our reasonable interpretation not to color/filter Gods word with our own prejudices.

Feanor
11-01-2004, 06:21 PM
Feanor, with all due respect to a fellow christian brother, the bible mentions nothing about same sex marriage, nor abortion. The bible is VERY clear about what God doesn't like, but same sex marriage was not an issue in biblical times, this is a recent issue.

I believe that God gives us choices. We have a choice to serve him, or not. Each choice has repercussions(good or bad). What we as man think is wrong, may not be wrong in Gods eyesight. Remember, as high as the heavens are from the earth, are his thought from ours. Men look on the outside, God searches the heart. We must be careful in our reasonable interpretation not to color/filter Gods word with our own prejudices.
Amen to all of it.

jeskibuff
11-01-2004, 08:59 PM
None of your stuff is backed up.Sorry, but I write from the wealth of knowledge I have acquired. I just don't cut-and-paste from someone else's thoughts and think that because I provide a link, it's irrefutable! :rolleyes:
If I had more time, I'd provide links to back up my assertions, but I don't, so I won't.


I spoke with a veteran on Friday who flew helicopters in Vietnam...When he received the Distinguished Flying Cross, he took no fire. But, he had to fly through a fog bank at low altitude and at a slow speed to reach a tank that had hit a mine.He was exposed to danger and was a sitting duck for enemy fire but took none.Well, that was a heroic act. Kerry demanding that he receive a medal for a superficial self-inflicted scratch that required a band-aid was an arrogant manuever, consistent with the opportunist behavior that he exhibits today.


You know your point-by-point analysis of the factcheck.org article is, with all due respect, stupid.I wouldn't say that. I would say that your support of a man with such little character that Kerry possesses is utterly stupid. Your inability to refute my points with something other than "you're stupid" just exhibits more of your stupidity.


The one that jumps out is your dismissing Rassman's account because he was holding his breath at the bottom of the river. Why do you think he was doing that?Well, DUH...a boat was just blown up by a mine. They thought they were being ambushed. He fell into the water. There was gunfire. Boats were gunning their engines (Kerry high-tailed it out of there, the coward) I'd probably duck under the water, too. From the perspective of being in the water (ever take a swim in a lake?) you cannot adequately assess what's going on around you. But the fact that none of the boats was hit by gunfire indicates that either the enemy had EXTREMELY poor aim, the Swift Boats had their shields up or THERE WAS NO ENEMY GUNFIRE! Based on the testimony of the many Swiftees that had a better perspective, I'll believe them! Based on Kerry getting caught in many lies, I'll believe the Swiftees over lying Kerry ANY DAY!

Look, I was born in 1968.That's a surprise. By your weak arguments, I would guess that you were born yesterday!


These attacks against the decisions young men made during that era (including those against Clinton, Bush and Kerry) will not sway my opinions.Face the truth. Kerry could kill someone in public and you'd still vote for him. There's SO MUCH damning evidence against Kerry that you'd be a total fool to still vote for him. But you will, won't you?


I'm not defending Kerry with unsupported summaries of "what really happened."That's good for Kerry. He can't seem to support his own summaries of what happened (again, refer to Christmas in Cambodia)


I do know that the swift boat ads came from heavy Bush supporters out of Texas and I do have experience with Karl Rove's tactics in my state. These ads have his signature.Yet, you'll eat up all the Michael Mooron/Dan Rather/Al Franken /George Soros/Moveon/Kitty Kelley propaganda without batting an eyelash, won't you?


I'll cut you some slack if you're military (a "true soldier" to use your words) and I'll stop responding to your unsupported accusations. In other words, I'll even let you have the last say. But, until you step up, I'll keep calling you out.Oh, what a drama queen you are. You've got a lame candidate that you blindly support. You're really quite pitiful.


His actual actions in Vietnam are not really provable. He did get the medals.But if he signed that form 180 and released his records, we'd see who's doing the lying - the Swiftees or Kerry. Based on Kerry's track record, it's not really necessary. Kerry's nothing less than pathological.




...
Conclusion

The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.
The world, not to mention Americans, needs that result.

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/


October 11, 2004 | 6:20 PM ET

THE ELECTION MAY TURN ON THE ELECTIONS
In America, most pundits are still talking about Friday's debate between John Kerry and George W. Bush. But the real events of the weekend are elsewhere. In fact, they may be the elections that determine the election.

In Australia, pro-American and pro-Iraq war Prime Minister John Howard won a fourth term, and gained legislative seats, in an election that Australia's anti-war left did its best to turn into a referendum on the invasion of Iraq. And it looks as if they succeeded in that, to their detriment. As Australian journalist-blogger Tim Blair notes, candidates who tried to blame the terror-war for terrorism (in this case, the Bali bombing that killed so many Australians) didn't do especially well.

Howard's resounding victory hasn't gotten a lot of attention from the American press -- though you can bet that if he had lost we'd be hearing that it was a colossal defeat for Bush, evidence that standing alongside the United States is toxic worldwide, yada yada, yada. But since good news for Bush is unwelcome, at least until November 3rd, the reverse isn't being emphasized.
Here's hoping that tomorrow's election will produce similar results!

dean_martin
11-02-2004, 06:03 AM
Sorry, but I write from the wealth of knowledge I have acquired. I just don't cut-and-paste from someone else's thoughts and think that because I provide a link, it's irrefutable! :rolleyes:
If I had more time, I'd provide links to back up my assertions, but I don't, so I won't.

Well, that was a heroic act. Kerry demanding that he receive a medal for a superficial self-inflicted scratch that required a band-aid was an arrogant manuever, consistent with the opportunist behavior that he exhibits today.

I wouldn't say that. I would say that your support of a man with such little character that Kerry possesses is utterly stupid. Your inability to refute my points with something other than "you're stupid" just exhibits more of your stupidity.

Well, DUH...a boat was just blown up by a mine. They thought they were being ambushed. He fell into the water. There was gunfire. Boats were gunning their engines (Kerry high-tailed it out of there, the coward) I'd probably duck under the water, too. From the perspective of being in the water (ever take a swim in a lake?) you cannot adequately assess what's going on around you. But the fact that none of the boats was hit by gunfire indicates that either the enemy had EXTREMELY poor aim, the Swift Boats had their shields up or THERE WAS NO ENEMY GUNFIRE! Based on the testimony of the many Swiftees that had a better perspective, I'll believe them! Based on Kerry getting caught in many lies, I'll believe the Swiftees over lying Kerry ANY DAY!
That's a surprise. By your weak arguments, I would guess that you were born yesterday!

Face the truth. Kerry could kill someone in public and you'd still vote for him. There's SO MUCH damning evidence against Kerry that you'd be a total fool to still vote for him. But you will, won't you?

That's good for Kerry. He can't seem to support his own summaries of what happened (again, refer to Christmas in Cambodia)

Yet, you'll eat up all the Michael Mooron/Dan Rather/Al Franken /George Soros/Moveon/Kitty Kelley propaganda without batting an eyelash, won't you?

Oh, what a drama queen you are. You've got a lame candidate that you blindly support. You're really quite pitiful.

But if he signed that form 180 and released his records, we'd see who's doing the lying - the Swiftees or Kerry. Based on Kerry's track record, it's not really necessary. Kerry's nothing less than pathological.



From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/


Here's hoping that tomorrow's election will produce similar results!

You know what? My point all along here has been that military service in Vietnam with respect to either candidate is not a controlling issue for me, even if Geo. Bush did hide out in the guard like a pussy (you asked for this - I've refrained until now from going after Bush). You've latched onto a single issue that has arisen from events occurring over 30 years ago.

Your assessment of me is wrong (except for the drama queen part). I've tried to add a little neutrality to this issue to juxtapose the extremism. I think you've implicitly acknowledged by your statements regarding whom you believe that you're taking the side of people relating events for the first time that occurred over 30 years ago. There's something fishy about that when Kerry has been in public service for 20 years. In addition, recordings and statements that took place contemporaneously with the events are generally considered more reliable. Besides, if you have a problem with the facts I posted, then take that problem up with factcheck.org. I'm just the messenger.

The reason you won't see the rest of Kerry's records is because AFTER his return to the states he was labelled a "demagogue like Ralph Nader" by the Nixon Adminstration and was targeted. This information is actually on the Nixon Tapes turned over during the Watergate Scandal. Of course Kerry began protesting when he got back but before he was discharged. The records will show the great lengths to which the Nixon Admin. went to discredit and destroy Kerry, so much so that his original discharge had to be reviewed by a board of officers and changed to honorable like it should have been in the first place.

Again your assessment of me personally is incorrect. I haven't seen Farenheit 9-11 and I view Michael Moore as an entertainer not a poltical guru. I don't watch network news. I watch mostly MSNBC and Fox. BTW, I saw President Bush lie in his interview with Bill O'Reilly last night. I watch Al Franken when he happens to be on Saturday Night Live.

See, you're the type of person who as Karl Rove has done in the past would attack someone on their sexual preference whether true or not to help your candidate. You're the type of person who as Karl Rove has done would start a rumour about the other candidate that he's a homosexual pedophile to make sure your candidate wins. You're the type of person who as Karl Rove has done would initiate a covert attack campaign against your own candidate on personal matters so that you could blame it on your opponent and turn the public against your opponent. I've got you pegged buddy and you've made my point by your personal attacks on me.

dean_martin
11-02-2004, 07:47 AM
Hate to butt in again :D, but...

His actual actions in Vietnam are not really provable. He did get the medals.

But his subsequent actions are a matter of public record. Is there a Vietnam vet here that will second his accusations? Did you'all really rape, kill, maim and torture innocent civilians as a matter of course?

And WHY WON'T HE RELEASE HIS MILITARY RECORDS?! He MUST have something to hide.

Pete

Pete, You're not "butting in". This is an open forum. But, since you spoke up - you let yourself off the hook with "...as a matter of course." The atrocities you listed whether rampant or not did occurr and have been confirmed. And, your call for seconds from veterans is getting the built-in response you desired - none. The tough questions are how we deal with and learn from those experiences. The most basic question is are atrocities committed during war time a natural product of war? IOTW, taken in context, are they really "atrocities". If they are, is punishment the right course of official action? This is an area that I really don't like to get into and I believe these are the questions underlying the attacks on Kerry. Let's learn, train field officers on these matters and get on with our lives.

Why won't Kerry release his records? Those that have sided with the Swifties believe or theorize that they will somehow disparage his actual service in Vietnam. Let me give you my THEORY which is just as plausible, is backed by more FACTS and is more PROBABLE. (Hey, my theory is just as valid or invalid as anyone else's.) Let's start with the facts. When Kerry RETURNED from Vietnam he began protesting BEFORE he was officially discharged. The Nixon tapes turned over after Watergate reveal that Kerry was a target of the Nixon Admin. He was labelled a "demagogue" in the presence of Nixon and equated with "Ralph Nader." This all seems laughable now, but the Nixon Admin. went after Kerry rightly or wrongly. The next set of facts is that a board of officers reviewed Kerry's discharge and decided on the honorable status. Some say this was unusual and that they must have changed an original determination. The records will show the great lengths to which the Nixon Admin. went to discredit and destroy Kerry for his anti-war activities AFTER he returned from Vietnam. Of course if a board of officers to a man determined his discharge status as honorable, why even play with fire? Again, the military determined, in an unusually intense and scrutinizing manner, that his service was honorable. That's good enough for me. As for Bush, the Guard had no official criticism of his service and that's good enough for me too.

FLZapped
11-02-2004, 09:55 AM
Why won't Kerry release his records? Those that have sided with the Swifties believe or theorize that they will somehow disparage his actual service in Vietnam. Let me give you my THEORY which is just as plausible, is backed by more FACTS and is more PROBABLE. (Hey, my theory is just as valid or invalid as anyone else's.) Let's start with the facts. When Kerry RETURNED from Vietnam he began protesting BEFORE he was officially discharged. The Nixon tapes turned over after Watergate reveal that Kerry was a target of the Nixon Admin. He was labelled a "demagogue" in the presence of Nixon and equated with "Ralph Nader." This all seems laughable now, but the Nixon Admin. went after Kerry rightly or wrongly. The next set of facts is that a board of officers reviewed Kerry's discharge and decided on the honorable status. Some say this was unusual and that they must have changed an original determination. The records will show the great lengths to which the Nixon Admin. went to discredit and destroy Kerry for his anti-war activities AFTER he returned from Vietnam. Of course if a board of officers to a man determined his discharge status as honorable, why even play with fire? Again, the military determined, in an unusually intense and scrutinizing manner, that his service was honorable. That's good enough for me. As for Bush, the Guard had no official criticism of his service and that's good enough for me too.

Here is the posting I made in this thread in regards to his discharge being reviewed:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=57533&postcount=111

There are a couple reasons to wonder why his discharge might be less than honorable, one being that he met with the North Vietnamese twice in France while still a commissioned officer, which is a direct violation of Uniform Military Code. Honorable discharges are never reviewed.

Of course, many probably also don't know that in 2001 he killed the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, HR2833 in his committee (that had already passed the house with 411 votes) that would have all but forced the N. Vietnamese to account for the remaining POWs, and oddly enough his cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO of Colliers International shortly thereafter received a HUGE contract to be the exclusive Real Estate representative in N. Vietnam. Coincidence, or collusion? (Right, so much for the Cheney-Halliburton connection)

Then there is this gem I stumbled across today:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1248970/posts


-Bruce

dean_martin
11-02-2004, 11:10 AM
Here is the posting I made in this thread in regards to his discharge being reviewed:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=57533&postcount=111

There are a couple reasons to wonder why his discharge might be less than honorable, one being that he met with the North Vietnamese twice in France while still a commissioned officer, which is a direct violation of Uniform Military Code. Honorable discharges are never reviewed.

Of course, many probably also don't know that in 2001 he killed the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, HR2833 in his committee (that had already passed the house with 411 votes) that would have all but forced the N. Vietnamese to account for the remaining POWs, and oddly enough his cousin C. Stewart Forbes, CEO of Colliers International shortly thereafter received a HUGE contract to be the exclusive Real Estate representative in N. Vietnam. Coincidence, or collusion? (Right, so much for the Cheney-Halliburton connection)

Then there is this gem I stumbled across today:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1248970/posts


-Bruce

I re-read your post on the discharge accusations and still believe that my theory/conclusion is just as valid. Are both rank speculation? Sure.

Also, the video purportedly tying Kerry to Albanian terrorists is a hodge podge of images that don't yield the conclusion you've made. Anyhow, in post 9-11, how did terrorists get into our country or retain residences here? (If they are "terrorists" and if they did come here.) Doesn't that reflect badly on Bush's handling of the war on terror? Has Bush made exceptions for the top members of the Democratic Party? Does Bush simply not know about these alleged meetings in PUBLIC gatherings, particularly at fundraisers? Did the Republicans give Kerry a pass on accepting contributions from terrorists? OR, was the Bush campaign accepting money from terrorists too? That's where crap like this leads. It often backfires.

As to your assertions regarding Kerry and the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, I'm not familiar with the bill, what committee it was before and why we're trying to pass laws with no effect on citizens of other countries. Just by the title you can tell that the Bill is dubious or that it makes some kind of statement without the effect of law. And, a lot of crap passes the House before being killed in the Senate. If that weren't the case, this country would be unrecognizable. I do know that Kerry is generally recognized as a leader in identifying POWs and MIAs in Vietnam.

The internet, short wave radio and to a large extent FOX News are dangerous tools in the hands of some people. (I'm sorry, this is merely hyperbole.) But, I guess much of this is in direct response to the allegations against Bush regarding his ties to the Suadi Royal family and the bin Ladens. Interestingly though, we were actually attacked by Saudies and a bin Laden.

Going a little off course here, I do get tapes, videos and transcripts generated from short wave radio shows and personalities from a friend of mine. The gerneral consensus is that there is no difference between Bush and Kerry when it comes to international manipulation, devious plots, etc. Apparently there is a brotherhood of int'l leaders and the citizens of individual countries are damned no matter who is elected. But, that's another topic.

My main interest today is SANITY and seeing an election of a President, no matter who it is, that doesn't take a close election as a mandate to push the entire agenda of his party. Compromise in Washington is actually a good thing. Gridlock in Washington is actually a good thing. The less laws that are passed the better off we are. The more laws that are repealed the better off we are. If on the other hand if the candidate I didn't vote for is elected in a landslide then I'll find a way to deal with an agenda I don't agree with.

piece-it pete
11-02-2004, 12:23 PM
F,

When I said:


If I called you a hypocritical bigot, wouldn't you be offended?

I was refering to this:


Conservative Christianity in the US is Pharisaic, that is, like the self-centred, self-righteousness of the Biblical Pharisees whom Christ condemned.

where you compared me, an American conservative Christian, to a hypocrite, condemned by Christ.



From this:


Though I'm a religious skeptic, I had a religious upbringing and understand Christian theology quite well for a layman. I am therefore as qualified as a pious person to hold an opinion regarding Christian ethics.

I got the impression that, although you grew up in a Christian atmosphere, you are not a born again Christian. Do I have this right?


Anyway, thanks for: "deep down most Canadians have a profound respect for Americans and America.", I will say that my experiences with Canadians have been very good, I would be flattered if I was mistaken for a Canadian. May our historic border remain at peace though the ages!

Now we have a Society of Mutual Admiration. :D



...there's a difference between leading and throwing your weight around. The US has forfeited the moral high ground. Arabs have believed this for years on account of US' unqualified support for Israel vs. Palestinians. The rest of the world is coming around to the same opinion, (Tony Blair excepted, of course).

No matter what, there will be those who say we're throwing our weight around. Sometimes they'll be right.

But we're NOT effecting them, outside of keeping the economic system that contributes mightily to their prosperity running smoothy - with our boys' blood.

We are the most friendly empire to ever walk the planet. Enlightened self interest - what a concept!

I'm not on board with those who blow up buses of innocents. Isreal is our staunch ally.

Blair, Blair, Blair. What should a conservative think? I used to call him "little clinton"!

But thinking Americans will not forget, at least for a month or two, :D , our mother countries' help.



Personally I think reasonable interpretation of the Bible does not supports Gay marriage nor abortion. But how great am I if I ban these things but leave people sick and starving in the streets: to me that's hypocracy.

Thanks, I can't see how one can believe Jesus would support abortion. When He forgave Mary Magdelene he did NOT ok the sin.

But as far as people sick and starving, then we by extention of that logic can or should do nothing. I will agree that everything man does is at least tinged with hypocracy.

Anyway, shortly all this will be moot. Kerry or Bush, to many world wide will disappoint. Bush will of course continue his policies, and Kerry will follow the same basic foreign policy plan regardless of his words.

Pete

dean_martin
11-02-2004, 12:52 PM
Sorry, but I write from the wealth of knowledge I have acquired. I just don't cut-and-paste from someone else's thoughts and think that because I provide a link, it's irrefutable! :rolleyes:
If I had more time, I'd provide links to back up my assertions, but I don't, so I won't.

Well, that was a heroic act. Kerry demanding that he receive a medal for a superficial self-inflicted scratch that required a band-aid was an arrogant manuever, consistent with the opportunist behavior that he exhibits today.

I wouldn't say that. I would say that your support of a man with such little character that Kerry possesses is utterly stupid. Your inability to refute my points with something other than "you're stupid" just exhibits more of your stupidity.

Well, DUH...a boat was just blown up by a mine. They thought they were being ambushed. He fell into the water. There was gunfire. Boats were gunning their engines (Kerry high-tailed it out of there, the coward) I'd probably duck under the water, too. From the perspective of being in the water (ever take a swim in a lake?) you cannot adequately assess what's going on around you. But the fact that none of the boats was hit by gunfire indicates that either the enemy had EXTREMELY poor aim, the Swift Boats had their shields up or THERE WAS NO ENEMY GUNFIRE! Based on the testimony of the many Swiftees that had a better perspective, I'll believe them! Based on Kerry getting caught in many lies, I'll believe the Swiftees over lying Kerry ANY DAY!
That's a surprise. By your weak arguments, I would guess that you were born yesterday!

Face the truth. Kerry could kill someone in public and you'd still vote for him. There's SO MUCH damning evidence against Kerry that you'd be a total fool to still vote for him. But you will, won't you?

That's good for Kerry. He can't seem to support his own summaries of what happened (again, refer to Christmas in Cambodia)

Yet, you'll eat up all the Michael Mooron/Dan Rather/Al Franken /George Soros/Moveon/Kitty Kelley propaganda without batting an eyelash, won't you?

Oh, what a drama queen you are. You've got a lame candidate that you blindly support. You're really quite pitiful.

But if he signed that form 180 and released his records, we'd see who's doing the lying - the Swiftees or Kerry. Based on Kerry's track record, it's not really necessary. Kerry's nothing less than pathological.



From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/


Here's hoping that tomorrow's election will produce similar results!

Sorry for calling your analysis stupid. And, sorry for categorizing/stereotyping you, too. It won't happen again.

FLZapped
11-02-2004, 06:36 PM
I re-read your post on the discharge accusations and still believe that my theory/conclusion is just as valid. Are both rank speculation? Sure.

Perhaps, but Kerry DID meet twice with the N. Vietnamese in France and this is a direct violation of the Uniform Military Code. One thing for sure, Kerry IS hiding something.



Also, the video purportedly tying Kerry to Albanian terrorists is a hodge podge of images that don't yield the conclusion you've made.

I made no conclusion whatsoever on this.



Anyhow, in post 9-11, how did terrorists get into our country or retain residences here? (If they are "terrorists" and if they did come here.) Doesn't that reflect badly on Bush's handling of the war on terror?

Wouldn't that reflect badly on the previous administration? Afterall, it is during the Clinton years they arrived. The same administration that saw previous attacks on the world trade centers, the attack on the USS Cole and in Africa. Also the same administration that had 3 opportunities to get Bin Laden and passed because he was afraid of International opinion. Kerry is of the same ilk.


I do know that Kerry is generally recognized as a leader in identifying POWs and MIAs in Vietnam.

By whom?



The internet, short wave radio and to a large extent FOX News are dangerous tools in the hands of some people. (I'm sorry, this is merely hyperbole.)

And what about CBS and Dan Rather then?

-Bruce

Feanor
11-02-2004, 08:00 PM
F,
...
Anyway, shortly all this will be moot. Kerry or Bush, to many world wide will disappoint. Bush will of course continue his policies, and Kerry will follow the same basic foreign policy plan regardless of his words.

Pete
As of this moment I guess most polls are closed, absentee and military ballots are in too. So we'll wait, (and wait, and maybe wait), to find out the winner.

Yes, it's true, Kerry cannot and will not walk away from Iraq. The US has put itself in Iraq's debt and the tab will be paid.

I'm sorry, I can't retract, qualify, or mitigate my statement that conservative Chrisitianity is Pharasaic. The Biblical Pharasees themselves did actually obey the law of Moses more precisely than most Jews of their time and felt themselves fully justified thereby. But Jesus condemned them ... Many, even most, Conservative Christians are genuinely moral people in terms of their personal obedience to the commandments, but, as for the Pharasees, it is not enough.

FLZapped
11-03-2004, 12:16 AM
Feanor, with all due respect to a fellow christian brother, the bible mentions nothing about same sex marriage, nor abortion. The bible is VERY clear about what God doesn't like, but same sex marriage was not an issue in biblical times, this is a recent issue.

Just because there isn't an explicit mention doesn't mean it isn't covered.

Was same sex marriage ever ordained by God? No. However, marriage between a man and woman was.



I believe that God gives us choices. We have a choice to serve him, or not. Each choice has repercussions(good or bad).

You start off by saying God gives us choices and then talk about choices man makes.

The former is incorrect the latter correct.

We have a choice and the free will to accept it, ot reject it.

-Bruce

piece-it pete
11-03-2004, 09:22 AM
As of this moment I guess most polls are closed, absentee and military ballots are in too. So we'll wait, (and wait, and maybe wait), to find out the winner.

Yes, it's true, Kerry cannot and will not walk away from Iraq. The US has put itself in Iraq's debt and the tab will be paid.

I'm sorry, I can't retract, qualify, or mitigate my statement that conservative Chrisitianity is Pharasaic. The Biblical Pharasees themselves did actually obey the law of Moses more precisely than most Jews of their time and felt themselves fully justified thereby. But Jesus condemned them ... Many, even most, Conservative Christians are genuinely moral people in terms of their personal obedience to the commandments, but, as for the Pharasees, it is not enough.

We are not in Iraqs' debt, it is the other way around.

I am aware of the Pharisees, who killed Jesus as certainly as Pilate did. I find it interesting that an admitted skeptic is judging me, a Pharisee (or Conservative Christian, per above), not the other way around.

BTW, Sir TT, here's a coupla quotes:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22

"If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." Lev. 20:13

Pete

FLZapped
11-03-2004, 09:58 AM
The Biblical Pharasees themselves did actually obey the law of Moses more precisely than most Jews of their time and felt themselves fully justified thereby.

This is incorrect. They were entrusted to be the keepers of the law, yet they subplanted it with their own version of it in order to create themselves as a ruling class over the people. Their acts actually inhibited the people from true worship. They made their worship an incencere public display to prove their importance. What they had was self-righteousness, not true righteousness.

-Bruce

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in." (Matthew 23:13 RSV).

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" (Matthew 23:23-24)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-19-2004, 12:42 PM
Just because there isn't an explicit mention doesn't mean it isn't covered.

You cannot assume that.


Was same sex marriage ever ordained by God? No. However, marriage between a man and woman was.

Forget the word marriage, that is unimportant. He mention nothing about same sex unions or convenants. The use of the word marriage unnecessary, equality is necessary. So call it a union, give it the same rights.


You start off by saying God gives us choices and then talk about choices man makes.

The former is incorrect the latter correct.

We have a choice and the free will to accept it, ot reject it.

-Bruce

You can reject it personally if you desire, but your rejection shouldn't affect anothers acceptance. God does give us free will, with consequences.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-19-2004, 01:03 PM
BTW, Sir TT, here's a coupla quotes:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22

"If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." Lev. 20:13

Sorry Pete, once again your lack of understanding of the original Hebrew text is causing you, and many other to make huge mistakes in interpretation. Had the writer intended to convey homosexuality being condemned here, he would have likely used the Hebrew word 'iysh, which means "man", or "male person". Instead, the author utilizes a much more complicated Hebrew word, zakar, which literally translated means "a person worthy of recognition".

Taking Leviticus 18: 22 into proper context, then, one looks at the preceding verse 21: "And you must not allow the devoting of any of your offspring to Molech". What we see here in actuality are warnings to the Israelites not to engage in the fertility rituals of the worshippers of Molech, which often required the granting of sexual favors to the priest. Had this been a mere condemnation of homosexuals, the writer would have used clearer language.