Us presidential election 2004

[Grizzlie 0]

So i'm gonna to spend more than i earn

I wander how soon i will go to the jail ...

[denoir 0]

Boeing's headaches have practically nothing to do with currency fluctuations.

That's exactly my point. They should be doing better thanks to the weaker currency, but they're not.

I'm not too familiar with the Boeing story, though, so perhaps you are right that it's internal problems that have led them to this point.

Overall however, the dynamics of the global market has changed with the US being in a weaker position. Now a lot of it has to do that in the past few years the EU has finally gotten its shit together as an entity and as such is able to provide some serious competition. Although it isn't primarily Bush's fault, it still seems like something that could be used (twisted if necessary) by the challenger. That hasn't been the case.

Anyway, does anybody have an explanation for the Bush/Europe, Kerry/individual states thing?

[ralphwiggum 6]

I noticed one things in the debates that I found interesting: Bush mentioned "Europe" on several occasions, while Kerry insisted on individual nations - even where it was wrong.

For instance the Iran negotiations is an EU effort, but Kerry in both debates said that it was Britain, Germany and France.

Bush on the other hand, said (not seldom in a negative context) "the Europeans.. "in the halls of Europe" etc

Anybody have a suggestion why? I've heard some right-wing nutjobs (Rush Limbaugh IIRC) refering to Kerry as a "Euro-snob" during the primaries - but that was a long time ago.

it's a lot easier to collectively divide us and them in such manner. for example if Germany does something, it's easier to say 'those euros' and try to stereotype.

[theavonlady 2]

Let's laugh again with JibJab's latest flic, Good To Be In D.C., starring George and John - of course!

[Bernadotte 0]

Let's laugh again with JibJab's latest flic, Good To Be In D.C., starring George and John - of course!  

What?  Am I on your ignore list.  

Jib Jab have done it again:  Good to be in D.C.

LMAO  

[theavonlady 2]

Did someone say something?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]BillyBob, you mentioned earlier that the economy doesn't affect you, but how come gay marríages or research with frozen dot of cells do?

It is a belief.

Quote[/b] ]Well what might he know now?

There are plenty of reason why he should of taken the VP job if you look now....

[EiZei 0]

There are plenty of reason why he should of taken the VP job if you look now....

Maybe he has some pride left and wont go along with the guy who smeared him and his military record in 2000?

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]It is a belief.

So things like economy that affect millions don't matter to you. I just wished you could have based your support for Bush on other than ethical or emotional issues which seem completely irrational. Too bad.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Maybe he has some pride left and wont go along with the guy who smeared him and his military record in 2000?

Hold on..... Did I not see McCain campaigning for Bush? Or, his speech during the RNC.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]So things like economy that affect millions don't matter to you. I just wished you could have based your support for Bush on other than ethical or emotional issues which seem completely irrational. Too bad.

Again, kiddies... it is a belief or a opinion. Furthermore, I am voting for Bush and those two things hardly effect my vote.....

Edit:  

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, does anybody have an explanation for the Bush/Europe, Kerry/individual states thing?

Well my theory is that it's easier to say 'Europe' when you speak in negative terms 'Those Europeans...' makes it easier to digest to audience. I feel it getting same negative attitude attached to it like 'Liberal' has in Republican supporters at least. When Bush speaks in positive terms he of course addresses the countries individually, especially when speaks of the grand 'Coalition of the Willing'. Then countries stand as individuals, valuable allies, etc. It does not make any difference that they are in Europe in that case, as Europe as a whole is a negative term.

And Kerry is avoiding the word EU or Europe because they have these negative feelings attached to them. Probably also saying 'European Union' would just mix up the rhetorics too much and probably many in the US don't know much about EU.

Way to speak positively about Europe is say something like 'our European friends' or our 'European allies'....which of course makes sense since not all European countries are in NATO etc.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Again, kiddies... it is a belief or a opinion. Furthermore, I am voting for Bush and those two things hardly effect my vote.....

Kiddies?

And now you say even those issues don't matter. What I am trying to find out here is what DOES affect your vote, why are you so shy about it?

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, does anybody have an explanation for the Bush/Europe, Kerry/individual states thing?

Well my theory is that it's easier to say 'Europe' when you speak in negative terms 'Those Europeans...' makes it easier to digest to audience. I feel it getting same negative attitude attached to it like 'Liberal' has in Republican supporters at least.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too. While 'France' and 'Germany' probably arn't too popular names with the republicans, Britain should be a positive one for them.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Again, kiddies... it is a belief or a opinion. Furthermore, I am voting for Bush and those two things hardly effect my vote.....

Kiddies?  

And now you say even those issues don't matter. What I am trying to find out here is what DOES affect your vote, why are you so shy about it?

He's against stem cell research, for a gay marriage ban and doesn't give a shit about the economy. Sounds like he's very much like Bush.  

Anyway, found a pretty good review of the last debate:

Strikeout: Kerry blows the second debate [slate]

Quote[/b] ]

In honor of the baseball playoffs, I've borrowed the metaphor of a ninth-inning rally to describe the Democrats' October comeback. In the first presidential debate, John Kerry got the lead-off hit. In the vice-presidential encounter Tuesday night, John Edwards singled him to third. I guess they substituted a pinch runner (that's the problem with metaphors), because tonight Kerry was back at the plate. It was a long at-bat, with lots of hanging sliders thrown by President Bush. Kerry fouled off a few, whiffed a couple, and struck out looking.

Bush did well. He botched a few answers—at one point, he said our military should be "more facile"—but he was well-prepared, energetic, and frequently incisive. Democrats thought he'd have trouble fielding hostile questions. They were wrong. Five minutes in, a questioner asked him why Saddam Hussein's theoretical ability to produce weapons of mass destruction was grounds for invasion, given that many other countries meet this standard. Bush tacked the question without hesitation. He said that 9/11 had changed the rules and that a new report from U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer showed Saddam "was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions" and "restart his weapons programs." Later, a questioner told Bush that the Patriot Act "weakens American citizens' rights." Bush respectfully disagreed and explained why.

Kerry, too, was well-prepared, energetic, and incisive. But he failed to do two things that Edwards did against Vice President Cheney. Edwards, like Bush, has message discipline. From the beginning to the end of Tuesday's debate, Edwards hammered one theme: "Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American people." At the same time, Edwards adapted to the flow of the debate, using Cheney's answers to reinforce the theme. Each time Cheney said something far-fetched, Edwards took that statement and beat it against the cement of reality.

Kerry did neither of those things tonight. The first questioner of the evening raised the charge that he was "wishy-washy." Kerry responded with a canned line about Bush turning his campaign into a "weapon of mass deception." The next questioner asked about Bush's response to the Duelfer report. Bush said the report showed Saddam had connived to restart his WMD programs. This was the first hanging slider of the night: It begged for Kerry to ask, "Is that what the president thinks this report showed? Did he not read it? Did he not see its overriding conclusion that Iraq didn't have the weapons he said it had when he misled this nation into war? His own chief weapons inspector says the rationale for the war was false—and the president still won't admit it?"

Kerry said none of this. He didn't even mention the report. In fact, he changed the subject to jobs, health care, and education. Incredibly, Bush set him up again, saying, "Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies." Instead of repeating that quote and highlighting the gaffe—"What weapons of mass destruction?"—Kerry began talking about the sanctions.

Two questions later, Bush tossed another fat one over the plate. While arguing that it's better to be right than popular, he allowed, "I've made some decisions that have caused people to not understand the great values of our country." A politician who understood the language of values—Edwards, for example—would have pounced on that quote, saying something like this: "There is no excuse for failing to make clear to the world the values of our country. The way to make others understand our values is to live out those values. And that starts with telling the truth, so that other nations will believe us." But Kerry doesn't understand values. So, instead he called Bush's answer "more of the same" and repeated that Bush had screwed up Iraq.

At this point, Bush uttered an amazing reply:

I remember sitting in the White House looking at those generals, saying, "Do you have what you need in this war? Do you have what it takes?" I remember going down to the basement of the White House the day we committed our troops as a last resort, looking at Tommy Franks and the generals on the ground, asking them, "Do we have the right plan with the right troop level?" And they looked me in the eye and said, "Yes, sir, Mr. President." Of course, I listen to our generals. That's what a president does. A president sets the strategy and relies upon good military people to execute that strategy.

The president of the United States had just blamed the military for screwing up the war. Surely Kerry would seize this chance, before tens of millions of people, to point out that Bush was refusing to reciprocate the loyalty of his troops. But no. Here's what Kerry said: "You rely on good military people to execute the military component of the strategy, but winning the peace is larger than just the military component."

Component? Who runs Kerry's debate prep? Michael Dukakis?

The next question was about the looming nuclear threat from Iran. Bush ended his answer by recalling, "In my speech to the Congress, I said there's an axis of evil—Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—and we're paying attention to it." A shrewd debater would have brought up that quote at the next opportunity, scolding Bush for having squandered our credibility and firepower on the least dangerous member of the axis. Kerry, of course, did not.

Halfway through the debate, a questioner asked Kerry why he had picked a running mate who "has made millions of dollars successfully suing medical professionals." Here's how Edwards began his answer to a similar question Tuesday: "I'm proud of the work I did on behalf of kids and families against big insurance companies, big drug companies, and big HMOs." Here's how Kerry answered tonight: "John Edwards is the author of the Patients' Bill of Rights. He wanted to give people rights. John Edwards and I support tort reform." See the difference? Edwards reframes the question right away, goes on the offensive, and talks about people. Kerry accepts the way the question is framed, plays defense, and talks about legislation.

The next question was about spending. Moderator Charlie Gibson followed up by asking the candidates, "I have heard you both say during the campaign—I just heard you say it—that you're going to cut the deficit by a half in four years. But I didn't hear one thing in the last three and a half minutes that would indicate how either one of you do that." Bush evaded Gibson's question. Here was Kerry's opportunity to score points for candor and specificity by listing the campaign proposals he had already scaled back in view of the growing deficit. But Kerry didn't think of this until the debate had moved on.

Ten minutes from the end, a woman asked about "tax dollars" being used "to support abortion." Kerry said he was Catholic and respected her beliefs but couldn't "take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't" agree. He said he could "counsel people" about "life" and "making other choices," but "you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them."

I know something about abortion politics, so I can tell you how effective Kerry's answer was. It was awful. He defended public funding of abortion, which most Americans oppose, while at the same time he managed to convey ambivalence about the legal right to abortion, which most Americans support. Bush immediately punished him—"I'm trying to decipher that," the president joked—and blasted Kerry for opposing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and laws requiring parents to be notified when their minor daughters seek abortions. Kerry proceeded to defend his positions on these issues, each of which Bush had brought up precisely because it's a loser for Kerry. Not once did Kerry point out that Bush favors a wildly unpopular constitutional amendment to ban abortions.

Just when it looked as though Kerry would end the debate on a bad note, he got his biggest gift of the night. The final questioner asked Bush, "Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it." Amazing, incorrigibly, Bush refused yet again to concede any significant error. On "the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions, because I think they're right," he said. "On the tax cut, it's a big decision. I did the right decision."

Gibson turned to Kerry. The pitch was hanging there, waiting to be smacked into the upper deck. All Kerry had to do was walk up to the questioner and say, "You just asked the president to name three mistakes. He couldn't name one. He can't correct his mistakes, because he can't see them, even when his own weapons inspector puts it on the front page of the newspaper. You can't change this president. You can only replace him."

Here's what Kerry said instead: "I believe the president made a huge mistake, a catastrophic mistake, not to live up to his own standard, which was [to] build a true global coalition, give the inspectors time to finish their job, and go through the U.N. process to its end and go to war as a last resort." Blah, blah, elaboration, prepositional phrase, caveat, whimper, end.

What's the point of taking notes if you don't use what the other guy says? Is Kerry really listening? Or is he just trying to look like a man who takes notes?

This wasn't a disaster for the Democrats. They've still got two men on base. And maybe, as some polls suggest, the game is already tied. Maybe Kerry can live to play another inning if he doesn't score here. But maybe other polls are more accurate, and Kerry still trails by a run. If so, he's got one more at-bat to save the season.

[Blake 0]

Good review, there certainly was lots of oppoturnities to attack against what Bush said but Kerry pretty much played it safe. To anyone who has followed the news it's pretty self-evident that Bush's WMD claims are ridiculous without the need for underlining. I agree that Edwards could have done better job against Bush and probably would have been more on the offensive.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Again, kiddies... it is a belief or a opinion. Furthermore, I am voting for Bush and those two things hardly effect my vote.....

Kiddies?

And now you say even those issues don't matter. What I am trying to find out here is what DOES affect your vote, why are you so shy about it?

Apparently the "R" after a candidate's name.

I also love it when people base their vote on issues that "don't effect" them.

For example, stem cell research. People vote for Bush because for soem arbitrary reason, or religious reason, they are against it. Of course what never occurs to them is the medical advances and cures that could be found with this research, but that doesn't occur to them because it doesn't directly effect them. The people who have to live with sick people everyday are of course for the research. That makes no difference since as along as someone doesn't have to watch a love one deteriorate and die, its just some dumbass "belief" that will prevent others from being helped. How caring and non-selfish.

EDIT: Pre-tea.......

[Bernadotte 0]

Does anyone know where the EU stands on embryonic stem cell research?

Without getting into a debate on ethics, I'm wondering if a Bush victory might send this important research overseas.  Or perhaps only the controversial lab work would be done by affiliate institutions outside the US while American pharmaceutical companies would continue to harvest the patents.  ...Kind of like the biotechnological equivalent of Guantanamo Bay.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]That makes no difference since as along as someone doesn't have to watch a love one deteriorate and die, its just some dumbass "belief" that will prevent others from being helped. How caring and non-selfish.  

erm... do not make assumptions....

I guess you blame Reeve's death on Bush (my assumption)...

Quote[/b] ]He's against stem cell research, for a gay marriage ban and doesn't give a shit about the economy. Sounds like he's very much like Bush

Actually, I'm for civil unions....

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]erm... do not make assumptions....

I guess you blame Reeve's death on Bush (my assumption)...

And you are the one who is calling grown-ups with a real life and families kiddies ?

Check your status on the grow-uppo-meter man.

[denoir 0]

Does anyone know where the EU stands on embryonic stem cell research?

Yes, it strongly supports it and funds it. At least on the union level.

There are however member states that aren't very positive to it and the EU rules exempt them from the participation in the funding.

In Germany, France, Ireland and Spain (possibly Poland too) it's banned for now. They generally however allow importing of them.

To sum up, it's better (from a scientific point of view) than the US, but still falls short. For instance Japan and Australia have far better rules.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]And you are the one who is calling grown-ups with a real life and families kiddies ?

Check your status on the grow-uppo-meter man.

Erm.. figure of speech... Furthermore, he did made a assumption...

[EiZei 0]

Does anyone know where the EU stands on embryonic stem cell research?

Yes, it strongly supports it and funds it. At least on the union level.

There are however member states that aren't very positive to it and the EU rules exempt them from the participation in the funding.

In Germany, France, Ireland and Spain (possibly Poland too) it's banned for now. They generally however allow importing of them.

To sum up, it's better (from a scientific point of view) than the US, but still falls short. For instance Japan and Australia have far better rules.

I recall the goverment openly funding stem cell research in Helsinki university, cant be sure though.

[Akira 0]

erm... do not make assumptions....

I guess you blame Reeve's death on Bush (my assumption)...

I don't remember addressing you speciifically as my post was extremely general. Unless of course you feel its addressed to you through some form of guilt.

In any case, even if I was addressing you specifically, assumptions are all we have to go on with you in any case, because you have as of yet refused to make any concrete statements regarding your support and "beliefs".

And no I don't blame Bush for Reeve's death, as any form of medical breakthrough would not have been accomplished in time most likely.

But I do however blame all future deaths on Bush and anyone else that blocks the research, or supports the stoppage, as they block all advancments.

[Schoeler 0]

Anyway, found a pretty good review of the last debate:

Strikeout: Kerry blows the second debate [slate]

I can't in any way call the 2nd debate a strikeout for Kerry. It wasn't a home run, but more like a safe single:

Kerry opens lead after 2nd debate.