John Kerry

[Spider AL]

I agree with the war. I don't know why,..

 

...I'm voting against Kerry because he voted against better equipment for our troops, and then blames it on Bush, and says that if he gets in office, better equipment will be provided for them. That crap is not right. (let me guess, i got my facts wrong again)

Now, Rogue seems like an okay sort of a guy, he's got a sense of humour. What worries me is that there are masses of people that will be voting for Bush for similar reasons. This will make stealing the election so much easier for Bush this time around.

 

meh. i'm just proving to myself that i'm an idiot that doesn't know anything about politics.

I've always wondered... why do people that don't know anything about politics think that they're informed enough to vote?

 

Oh well, voting doesn't do much anyhoo.

[ET Warrior]

@Feanaro:

 

I don't think Kerry is really moving us towards a socialist health plan, so much as he's just trying to make it so everyone has health insurance. Too many people have no health insurance and are therefore either unable to afford most normal medical treatment, or the doctor is forced to treat them without getting paid. Either way is unacceptable.

 

I don't really know HOW Kerry plans to do it, only that he says he HAS a plan. We shall see.

[ShadowTemplar]

Prime Minister Allawi of Iraq gave an amazing speech before Congress the other day - extremely optimistic, very hopeful, and very sincere. Then, in a similar vein, the Prime Minister stood with President Bush at the White House and gave a press conference with similar optimism and hope.

 

And it never occurred to you that the Iraqi government is in fact instated by dubya... And it never struck you as odd that they supported their backer?

 

but it isn't my country, and our commedians would have so much less to work with if bush didn't get re-elected...

 

Surely you mean 'does not stay in power' rather than 'doesn't get reelected'. The two are not neccesarily connected.

 

So is there any place where you can get all the FACTS about what the cannidates are backing? Cause i've read that Kerry supports gay marraige and i've read he opposes it. But i'm pretty sure he opposes gay marriage. Can any one help me find a good website?

 

I'd suggest the New York Times or BBC World. Or their official homepages.

 

Not propaganda.Pictures of the murder of children. Just letting everyone know what they're supporting if they vote for Kerry.

 

[...]

 

The death penalty is murder. A child is murdered because someone 'chose', every 22 seconds. People in prison are not executed every 22 seconds. It is the womans choice what she does, but it is my belief she shouldn't kill her child. It is that simple.

"We know that its killing. But the state permits killing under

certain circumstances." --Dr. Neville Sender, abortion clinic founder, quoted

by Pro-choice author Magda Denes

"Abortion is the taking of a life." --Pro-abortionist and former

Planned Parenthood president Mary Calderone, American Journal of Public

Health vol 50 no. 71960

 

I could go into a long rant about why that's utter bull****, but I won't. Mainly because I'm dead tired of seeing pro-Bushers and religious fanatics attempting to derail discussions by turning them into monochromatic flamewars. You will not succeed this time.

 

Hell, I remember debates within my own platoon about the validity of U.S. involvement in the first Gulf War.

 

Ahem, Skin. Second Gulf War. First one was between Iran and Iraq.

 

I'm sorry you don't see this going on but(my church at least) helps like consistently and intensely with poverty.

 

By doing what exactly? Unless they're giving money to independent organisations like UNICEF, the Red Cross/Red Moon, Amnisty International, Medicins sans Frontiers, or someone else who actually knows what he's doing, I'm not bying it.

 

The Fox ads are not represented correctly by what you typed. They simply are more conservative then the rest of the liberal media.

 

You know what? I'll dare you to stop watching Fux News, go to a different church and take out a subscription on the New York Times and BBC World for a year or two, and then compare their standards to those of Fux. Hell, if you can actually prove to me that you're reading the Times, I'll pay for your subscription.

 

Why was Saddam ****ing with the inspectors then.

 

While I don't know for sure, I do have an idea: Hussein wanted to maintain the illusion that Iraq had WMD in order to scare his local enemies. Possibly he even believed that he had them. He managed to convince most of his generals that Iraq had large supplies of WMDs. And - as Dubya can testify - if you repeat a lie often enough, you end up believing it.

 

But, you might ask, why didn't he realize that the jig was up when the US started pushing the UN around? Again, I don't know for sure. But a tendency that appears in every administration of every organisation is the Bay of Pigs Symdrome: That everyone tells his superior what he thinks he wants to hear for fear of losing his job and/or life. Imagine being an Iraqi general in late 2002, when dubya was first talking about Iraq.

 

You'd probably be at a loss to tell if Europe went along with the US. The correct thing to do would be to say this. But if everyone else says that there is no chance whatsoever that Europe is going to play ball, then you have to say so as well, to avoid being accused of lacking patriotism - a potentially lethal accusation in Iraq.

 

This means that it is entirely possible that the lie that the US would never attack could have been perpetuated by Iraq's chief commanders for several months, before they discovered that this position would be untendable.

 

Now comes the interesting part: Imagine being the guy who tells this to Hussein.

 

I think he wants to go towards a socialist/socialized healthcare program like in Canadia. Which is pretty cool seeing on the government would pay for all of our health care. But there is a problem........we are incredibly in debt!

 

That won't be a problem. Just give your health insurance checks to Uncle Sam rather than some sleezy insurance company, and you'll get better healthcare, better coverage, and you'll even have money left to spend on revitalizing your educational system. That's right. Your health care is both worse and more expensive pro capita than socialized models.

 

Plus I don't like the idea of the Government having control over the type of healthcare i get. You know if i get just the basics of a normal doctors visits. But when it comes to more serious things such as MRI's and Cat Scans, the government has to give approval when the signs of a certain problem show up, which in turn would lead to later diagnoses(what's the correct word?). I don't really like that.

 

Doesn't work like that in the real world.

[Spider AL]

Ahem, Skin. Second Gulf War. First one was between Iran and Iraq.

While you are technically correct, Desert Storm is now most commonly referred to as "The first Gulf War", and the Iran-Iraq war is referred to most commonly as... just that. Picky. Anyway, we know what he's talking about.

 

Doesn't work like that in the real world.

A good national health service can work extremely well, or extremely poorly depending on the amount of red tape that's injected into it. But I'd always prefer it as a system, because one can STILL get a second opinion in the private healthcare system if one has the money and the inclination to do so.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Uh? Looks like lots of people don't know nothing about public healthcare(not you AL).

 

You don't need the government's approval to get a cat scan, an MRI or any other kind of operation. It is entirely up to your doctor. You just give your money to the government and they take care of putting it back into the healthcare system.

 

Knowing that 45 million americans CANNOT afford health insurance...

 

I hope no one starts yelling:"But what about all those people who don't work and have free healthcare! I don't want to pay taxes for them!"

 

BECAUSE I WILL RIP THEIR FACES OFF!

 

They don't know sh!t about what's being poor!

 

I'm against having a private and a public healthcare system working together. It's a bit of a principle where I live that everyone gets the same healthcare, young or old, poor or rich. It would be very unfair that the rich get to have "better" healthcare then the rest.

[Spider AL]

I'm against having a private and a public healthcare system working together. It's a bit of a principle where I live that everyone gets the same healthcare, young or old, poor or rich. It would be very unfair that the rich get to have "better" healthcare then the rest.

An entirely laudable sentiment, lukeiamyourdad. It is also an irksome source of annoyance to me that the very rich can obtain the best of everything... but it's the way things have always been.

 

One can strive against corruption with all one's might, but corruption is a part of humanity's spirit, and even if all rich people were eradicated right now, a new elite would soon separate themselves off from the herd and take their place.

[lukeiamyourdad]

No matter, we decided it would be that way in all fairness.

 

They already have a lot more then the average citizen, it was just a way from the populace to show their middle finger to the rich.

I can't say I disagree.

[ShadowTemplar]

There is also the fact that having a private system running alongside the public one could potentially pull the most competent phycisians away from the public system.

[Spider AL]

There is also the fact that having a private system running alongside the public one could potentially pull the most competent phycisians away from the public system.

Many argue that it does just that... but I'm unsure. Doctors who desire money more than to help poorer people may not be the best givers of care, after all...

[Jdome83]

Doctors who desire money more than to help poorer people may not be the best givers of care, after all...

That cannot be applied to all doctors. Some doctors just find satisfaction in helping people become well.

[lukeiamyourdad]

That's the sad thing. Some doctors.

 

But it is indeed a very great problem. Logically, they would go work where it pays more and the work conditions are better. Normally, a private healthcare system working alongside a public one has those advantages.

 

I really fear that if the both work together, it'll slowly lead down to full private.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Jdome83

That cannot be applied to all doctors. Some doctors just find satisfaction in helping people become well.

what he was saying are the people that do it for the money are not the best care givers, meaning there are those that stick it out and do it for the people, not the money.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Hence, the USA's very serious over-prescription problem.

[toms]

i saw an interesting documentary once that said that (in the uk at least) when everything was nationalised it saw a big INCREASE in productivity, which gradually tailed off. When a lot of it was re-privatised it saw exactly the same increase in productivity, which tailed off in the same way. Implying that it doesn't really matter whether something is nationalised or private... it is how well run it is that matters. Unfortunately these things always seem to be more of a matter of ideology than common sense...

 

having the two working together is probably no different to either extreme... it is just another ideology.

[toms]

A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals.

 

Two e-mails, prepared for the executive director of the Bush campaign in Florida and the campaign's national research director in Washington DC, contain a 15-page so-called "caging list".

 

It lists 1,886 names and addresses of voters in predominantly black and traditionally Democrat areas of Jacksonville, Florida.

 

An elections supervisor in Tallahassee, when shown the list, told Newsnight: "The only possible reason why they would keep such a thing is to challenge voters on election day."

 

Ion Sancho, a Democrat, noted that Florida law allows political party operatives inside polling stations to stop voters from obtaining a ballot.

 

Mass challenges

 

They may then only vote "provisionally" after signing an affidavit attesting to their legal voting status.

 

Mass challenges have never occurred in Florida. Indeed, says Mr Sancho, not one challenge has been made to a voter "in the 16 years I've been supervisor of elections."

 

"Quite frankly, this process can be used to slow down the voting process and cause chaos on election day; and discourage voters from voting."

 

Sancho calls it "intimidation." And it may be illegal.

 

Republican state campaign spokeswoman Mindy Tucker Fletcher stated the list was not put together "in order to create" a challenge list, but refused to say it would not be used in that manner.

 

Rather, she did acknowledge that the party's poll workers will be instructed to challenge voters, "Where it's stated in the law."

 

There was no explanation as to why such clerical matters would be sent to top officials of the Bush campaign in Florida and Washington.

 

Private detective

 

In Jacksonville, to determine if Republicans were using the lists or other means of intimidating voters, we filmed a private detective filming every "early voter" - the majority of whom are black - from behind a vehicle with blacked-out windows.

 

The private detective claimed not to know who was paying for his all-day services.

 

full text on bbc web site

real media stream of the tv article

 

They also mentioned something about thousands of people being asked to fill in their details on petitions outside polling booths (such as ones to legalise marajuana) which actually had fake headers, and were actually voter registration forms. These voters (again predominantly black) were then registered in different counties. I guess this would then invalidate their vote?

 

I think this election is gonna be decided by the lawyers, just like the last one...

[kipperthefrog]

Given MY opinion, I cannot vot for a guy who would do the following:

 

-Pass PATRIOT ACT and defile our constitutin so federal agents can harrass people for saying the wrong things (so much for freedom of speech)

 

-send our boys to die and kill people for oil profits!(he didn't catch Bin Laden, but he invaded Iraq -who had nothing to do with terror- to protect the OIL FEILDS?

 

- use scare tactics to gain support! (Bu$h wants us to fear terrorists so we'd all blindly follow the leader!)

 

- last but not least- give tax breaks to the rich! Sorry, but making the rich richer and the poor poorer will not make new jobs! the rich just keep their money in the bank and the worker people are able to afford less, which WEAKENS our economy!

 

FINAL THOUGHT!

 

I say we are in pretty bad shape with Bu$h already! Even If Kerry betrays us too, we will be no worse off than we already are!

[SkinWalker]

Well, the election is over, Bush has won (fair and square), and Kerry has offered his concession speech.

 

There is a thread to discuss this: Kerry's Consession Speech, if you are interested in discussing further.

 

I'll leave this thread open, but close the poll.

 

It seems likely that Kerry's biggest downfall was the fact that he was (is) a member of the Senate, which allows the opposition to use his voting record as a weapon against him. This isn't necessarily unfair, since if the tables were turned, the Democratic candidate would certainly do the same. I don't think it would matter which Senator ran for President, Republican or Democrat, he/she would face the same challenge to their voting record. Senators, by nature, vote inconsistently due to political reasons (back scratching, favors, etc.).

 

The best place for the Democrats to look for a candidate in 2008 would be outside of Washington. I'm sure this applies to the Republicans as well, but I would sure like to see McCain have another run at the Presidency. Lets hope Bush's mistakes and blunders don't spoil the Republican image.

[ET Warrior]

Seems to me the problem really stems from the inability of Americans to think critically about a great many things.

 

I honestly cannot believe Ohio, once of the most impacted states in terms of Job loss could vote for Bush. I mean, if you look at THIS

it seems obvious who they should have picked to fix it.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

it seems obvious who they should have picked to fix it.

George Lucas?

[Master_Ginn]

Do you think Bin Laden's statement about not wanting Bush to become president again swayed the unsure voter? Just wandering.

[Spider AL]

Do you think Bin Laden's statement about not wanting Bush to become president again swayed the unsure voter? Just wandering.

Hee hee. CGI, anyone?

[SkinWalker]

Sure. It makes the casual voter think he/she's voting against Bin Laden.

 

Bin Laden needs Bush (or someone very like him) in order to continue his agenda. An unpopular U.S. President (with the rest of the world, not among Americans) makes finding volunteers in the jihad a little easier. It gives Bin Laden et al an "enemy" that they can focus on. Not that they would have quit if Kerry were elected, but one cannot discount the correlation of the video, its message and the proximity to election, particularly since the election was mentioned in the video. Also, we can assume Bin Laden realizes that offering even casual support for Kerry along with disdain for Bush would influence voters.

 

One could also argue that Bin Laden has existed to this point because Bush has need him. If all enemies are gone, the "war" is over and switching presidents in "wartime" is no longer an issue. This, however, is only speculation and can't even be called a hypothesis unless someone comes up with something measurable to discuss.