Nothing in the speech led me to believe he can be trusted as a war time, anti-terrorism president. But we sure heard a lot of blather. And he never addressed his post-military anti-war dumping on this nation. He didn't even repudiate Hanoi Jane, nor whether he did or did not throw his medals and or ribbons over the fence during his protest the war speech's.

It was an excellent speech and a harbinger of things to come. I really don't know how Bush is going to debate things like outsourcing being good for America, the rising cost of healthcare, corporate malfeasance and the middle class being squeezed out. On top that, toss in the environment and big oil ties and Bush has a tough row to hoe. I really don't think Bush can get reelected on just the WOT. This speech outlined a lot of domestic issues that are going to be extremely sticky once the debates begin.

Ralph,

"I really don't know how Bush is going to debate things like outsourcing being good for America"

Well, people said "all them Mexicans are stealing our jobs", It's the same thing to claim yourself a "victim of outsourcing". Certainly, in the short run, outsourcing looks bad, but it will free up human resources and force us to adapt, which is always good. I'm sure Bush will have a better argument than me, as well as some stats to back it up.

"the rising cost of healthcare"

Ahem...no thanks to Senator Edwards and other anti-tort reform lawyers.

"corporate malfeasance"

Which is all being rooted out by the Bush Admin. I don't get this weird parallel Bush detractors draw between "corporate malfeasance" and G. W. Bush. I mean, how many of these scumbags were hung out to dry under Clinton? Seems to me Bush is taking a zero tolerance policy on these greedy CEO's.

"middle class being squeezed out"

According to BusinessWeek's analysis, 40% of American workers belong to occupation/industry groups where the median pay is $559 a week or more. Yet employment growth in those higher-paying groups accounted for well over half of total job growth during the past year. Average monthly employment in the higher-paying groups was 744,000 higher in the 12 months ended in June, 2004, than in the previous 12-month period. By contrast, only 408,000 jobs were added in groups whose median pay was $553 a week or less, even though they account for 52% of total jobs. I'm middle class, and doing very well. Thanks George.

"toss in the environment"

Nobody gives a shit. The environment, I'm sorry to say, is a non-issue to most voters.

"and big oil ties and Bush has a tough row to hoe"

Thanks to the howling left. nobody listens to this shit anymore. The Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party has beaten that dead horse so much, nobody cares. And considering Bush is the least wealthy candidate in this race, does it matter?

As for the domestic issues being sticky, I didn't hear anything touted during this convention that both sides of the isle don't agree on. Mainly because they are hiding who they are, but I digress

Hey Phi - thanks for saving me a whole lotta work with your comment.

DITTO! :))

Phi,
I don't agree with all the points he's raising or even believe the Dem's are a better alternative. What I am trying to point out is that those are some powerful points for swing voters. My $1100 a month health insurance policy for my family was just raised to $1500 a month and I can't afford it. In addition, I'm having a problem finding a replacement policy. I'm feeling somewhat squeezed out so that part of his speech I can relate to. Do I want socialized medicine? That would be a big no. Does Bush have a healthcare policy and is he doing anything to address the problems of a healthcare industry out of control? That would be a big no.

I have no idea how many people really lost their jobs and/or trained their foreign replacements. We're gonna find out.

I just read the other day that CEO raises doubled in 2003 so corporate excess is still a reality.

You might not give a rat's ass about the environment but I believe you are a distinct minority.

It all spells trouble for Bush in the debates. Furthermore, he won't be debating a stiff like Gore. Kerry maybe a stiff but I suspect he can pull a "big brother" on Bush and these debates could get ugly. Just giving you a heads up.

Kerry's speech stinks on ice!

Actually, Bush's answer on outsourcing is already known, and you'll hear it again: more jobs are outsourced into the U.S. by foreign companies than U.S. companies sent out of the States. Thus the argument is that if we try to stop jobs being outsourced, we'll get into a trade war and lose a lot more jobs.

Whether you believe that answer or not will be up to you of course, but if you were wondering, that's the answer.

i think Kerry did a fine job explaining why he deserves a vote. obviously, if you are voting for bush, this speech isn't for you. But if youre voting *against* Bush and not *for* kerry, then this speech is a good one. Personally, aside from the policy, which y'all are likely to disagree with me on, i think Kerry made a few personally satisfying statements, such as the one on religion, where he said something to the effect of "I dont wear my religion on my sleeve", and "I don't hope god is on our side, i hope we are on god's side". I also liked his plan to increase the special forces to combat terrorism (which i have been advocating for some time). Also, i hate to beat a dead horse, but after 4 years of Bush's oratory skills, it is nice to hear a better (though by no means perfect) orator.

Regarding your increasing health care policy, go work somewhere else then. Find a job that offers better insurance, don't blame George Bush.

"Does Bush have a healthcare policy and is he doing anything to address the problems of a healthcare industry out of control? That would be a big no."

I beg to differ, here is a link to the GOP website outlining the plans and accomplishments of GW.

GOP Agenda

"You might not give a rat's ass about the environment but I believe you are a distinct minority."

I do care about the environment. Though I would rather kill caribou than let one more soldier die securing raghead oil fields. Anyway, like I said, it's a non issue to MOST voters. Look it up Ralph, it's irrefutable. People vote their pocketbooks and their hearts Ralph, they could give a shit less about the spotted owl.

"I just read the other day that CEO raises doubled in 2003 so corporate excess is still a reality."

This is America Ralph, whether you like it or not, we define excess. Besides excess, last I checked, isn't a crime.

"Just giving you a heads up."

I'm wringing my hands in anxiety Ralph, really.

Actually I thought it was pretty good for a Kerry speech. It was a little long on material and he seemed to be getting a bit breathless towards the end as he rushed through it but otherwise not bad. He got some good shots in on Bush, the bit about the Saudis was especially nice, I think that will resonate if he really tries to make an issue of it.

I was disappointed that his emphasis was in responding to terrorist attacks, I understand given that so much of his hard core base is antiwar but its really 9/10. If you're responding to an attack that means you've got dead civilians on your hands, do we really want to see what the next 9/11 is going to be like before we act? That doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling and I don't think it's going to work for the "Security Mom" vote either.

Oh, and the west wing of the hospital line? I'd lose that in a heartbeat. I thought it was a bit lame, but the woman of the house (an Edwards supporter like you oh Queen) had a rather different take on it. Her response was, "what an asshole". When I asked why she said, "Does he really think anyone buys that crap? West wing? Please, west, east, whatever. You were born in the f***** maternity ward, ass." So again, not a seller in our house. Of course on the bright side if he keeps using that line I might convince her to vote for Bush out of spite. There's always hope. ;-)

He had a chance to try and explain his Senate record. You don't think he's *gasp* running from that...do you? heh.

No substance. Struck out. There were some good speeches this week. Disingenuous, to be sure, but good. I knew Kerry would choke.

It was regurgitated boilerplate, nothing more. Plays well to those already disposed to vote for him, but he left himself so very wide open on so many fronts that I expect we'll not be hearing major parts of this speech recycled on the stump.

Kerry maxes out at 53% by Monday, then slides in to "Spiralling Death Mode" while Hillary weeps crocodile tears...

Ralph, I'm getting more and more impressed with you as a reasonable conservative (as if the labels really matter).

Folks, you don't have to be a leftist to recognize that this country, as powerful as it is militarily and economically, can do better. To be worthy of the monicer "greatest nation on earth," we should always stive to make living here better, every day. Goals are what makes an individual a sucess and a nation "great." When you reach one plateau, you must make new goal for even greater achievement, or the game of life is not worth the time.

I thought Kerry hit just the right note . . . we can do better. It's not about his ribbons or protests, or even about Bush's TANG service (which was not mentioned by Kerry either for those still hung up on trumped up charges of Hanoi John's treason) or either man's extremist records as perceived by the other side.

We as American's CAN do better, whoever is in the White House. I was really drawn to the message that our economy, our health care system, our respect throughout the world and our dealings with each other are NOT all they can be.

Kerry, pessimistic? Cheney better get a new message.

Oh and by the way, about personal injury lawyers (any lawyer who has worked on a contested divorce or defended a criminal before a jury is also a "trial lawyer" but we know what you guys mean as you attempt once more to skew the language for political purposes). Get a clue, they are not soley at fault for the health care system's woes, waste is, insurance companies forking over $250 for a ten minute consultation without batting an eye is, inflated insurance company CEO's salaries and double dividends are, ditto for drug and HMO's, and medical equipment companies

If there were more consern for healing and less for profit, there would be less need for watchdogs like PI lawyers because people would be getting better care. I have seen 1st hand how greed coupled with a weak personal character can overwhelm an otherwise talented and ethical professional, both in medicine and law. I've seen how terribly they can destroy lives. I've gone after both for malpractice.

Our problems with the health care system are a general reflection of capitalism, pure and simple, and must either be accepted with its warts of scrapped. It works. It's ugly but the alternatives would demand serious rethinking of our entire system. Not a mere panacea of an awards cap and getting rid of PI lawyers. Believe me, a lot of very bright people, lawyers and doctors, have been working on this problem in good faith, but have yet to define a truly equitable alternative that is not socialized medicine but does not work to prevenbt just compensation for the injured and also police the professions themselves from abuse.

Tell you what, go ahead and destroy the contingent fee system with your tort reforms. The lawyers left in the personal injury game will be subpar because the best in any profession rises to the top, and get paid accordingly. They will run from PI law. Or, if you are hurt and need the best, you can fork over $300 to $500 per hour to get decent representation. Good luck. You can make an appointment through my web site., I'll um, need a substantial retainer though, bring your checkbook.

Personal injury lawyers much like criminal attorneys serve a critical function in our system. To scapegoat either is to indict the free market and the constitution. Mind you we probably could do without divorce attorneys like myself. Any expoerience hockey referree could do as well.

I know this, as Kerry implied tonight, to do nothing is pessimistic and beneath us, we can do better.

"Personal injury lawyers much like criminal attorneys serve a critical function in our system."

Maggots and Fungus serve a critical function in the ecosystem. Doesn't mean we have to like them. Just a joke, I think law is an admirable profession.

" Get a clue, they (Lawyers) are not soley at fault for the health care system's woes,"

Nobody is saying they are. Defensive?

"If there were more consern for healing and less for profit"

Kumbaya my Lord...please. Yes, that would be nice, it's just the cynic in me that's laughing.

Of Course we can do better Mark. Part of the spirit of humanity is our constant drive to improve. Kerry/Bush, it doesn't matter, we will always strive to be better at all things. I'm just sticking with the guy who has the courage of his convictions, not the political whore.

Mark Adams,

Yes, "we" can do better - but what Kerry means is that "government" can do better, so please hand over your money so Kerry and spend it better than you do...

His whole speach was about mistrust of the American people, mistrust of American power and faith in foreigners who's interests do not necessarily match ours...he's toast.

Mark Noonan: You're forgetting the Michael Moore factor.

He will have a noticeable effect on this election, much like the Klan did in the 1930s. His neanderthal fans and defenders may be the critical path swinging the election for Kerry. If so it'll be perfectly legitimate of course. Just sad for the country. It'll be like winning an election because David Duke helped put you over the top.

But such people have helped win elections before, and likely will again. Democracy is like that.

I guess I thought it was a base hit; not bad enough, as you say, to make me puke. But I agrew with most of the comments that it was just the same old blather delivered in a breathy, rushed manner.

Ralph's comment, though, "it was an excellent speech and a harbinger of things to come" is about as cliche'd as they come, I'm sorry to say. If anybody can watch ANY of these speeches, Republican OR Democrat, and actually think that the candidates believe half of what they say and mean a quarter of that half, they are unfortunately living in a delusional state. These are PR shows meant to entertain the masses, and Kerry no more convinced me of any of his crap than did any of the others, save Obama, who is just a gifted speaker and convinced me of his credibility. I am a Republican but not a Bush lover, and I'm very, very disappointed that I went into this convention with an open mind but I wasn't able to be moved by anyone, except Obama.

Not for nothing but I watched Bush's acceptance speech in the 2000 Convention on CNN at 11:00 last night. I forgot how he walked out on the stage in a stupor and just stared around. Kind of different from Kerry's and Edwards' waving, thumbs-up, praying, pointing, laughing, party-like entrances. Not saying one was more appropriate than the other at all...just comparing the two entrances.

And it insults my intelligence to no end, and it should any Kerry supporter, to hear him say he will "never mislead us into war". He and Edwards voted to send us to war. If he believes the war is such a mistake, I want to hear HIM SAY THAT HE ERRED to cast his vote as such. I have yet to hear him acknowledge this fact. And I'm sure he won't.

Where is this question:

"Senator Kerry, you accused the President of the United States of 'misleading the nation into war.' But you had access to the exact same intelligence information he did. You drew the exact same conclusions about the danger presented by Saddam that he did. And you voted in favor of giving the President authority to go to war. Senator Kerry, were you misleading the public then, or are you misleading the public now? If not, can you please explain yourself and why you would say something so divisive to a nation at war?"

Feh. Good luck getting anyone to ask him that point blank.

My point exactly. And I don't get why anyone won't ask him that point blank, either. I just want to hear the spin on the answer.

Kerry looks like a president. He sounds like a president. Yet he offered little more than platitudes.

I was a little surprised at several things, for which I'd now never vote for him. Soldiers are overseas fighting and Kerry's giving aid and comfort to the enemy by saying the war never should've happened. He said John Ashcroft isn't upholding the Constitution. If I were Ashcroft, I'd challenge him to a duel.

In fact, I think dueling is going to be the only answer to these kinds of partisan attacks. And yeah, I'm half-serious about that. I'd love to see Michael Moore test out his renown firearms skills against a member of the NRA.

The Democratic party has been so disorganized lately, there was some question in my mind as to whether or not they could mount a credible challenge to Bush's domestic policy. Last night's speech disabused me of those notions. You folks can dance around it all you want but there are some serious holes in the Bush domestic policy. Certainly this speech might be tossed in the garbage pile and the Democrats might go on their merry way. If, on the other hand, this is a blue print for their campaign, I think the GOP has their work cut out for them. There is nothing cliche about this point. You folks might think that selling voters on "outsourcing is good for America" will be an easy task, I think otherwise. Bush can pull out all the stats he wants at the debate and Kerry will start talking about Joe Palooka who lost his job and house when his job was outsourced.

Michael Moore is a liability in terms of attracting swing voters IMHO. He represents everything a swing voter doesn't want for this country.

Anyone who isn't concerned about the Patriot Act in one shape or another is a fool. It appears that this issue will be fleshed out in the debates and it might not fall the GOP's way.

Base Hit. Ralph- Kerry voted for the Patriot act, so that really doesn't concern me.

Malpractice insurance premiums are a major factor in the price of health care today. We are seeing many doctors in Michigan retiring earlier due to the fact that the premiums are running them out of business, and these are doctors that have never had a suit brought against them!
Drug prices are the other issue. It is not illegal to get the drugs from Canada at this time. You go through a broker that needs the prescription directly from the physican and your drugs are sent to your door. So I am not so sure what Kerry is going to make legal of a system that is already legal. The only thing about the drugs is that they do not in all cases meet the standards that the FDA has set for the USA, and as with everything, there have been instances as of late where the patient is given bad drugs and they somehow want to bring suits into US courts.
I keep hearing the number 40 million people without health care, but I can't seem to get a breakdown of who they are. Is the 12 million undocumented illegals in the country lumped into that number? What exactly is the breakdown of that number?

Good to see you here, Ralph Stefan!

To back up what you said, some should remember people are not going to vote on numbers that are to them abstract, such as the total number of jobs insourced as opposed to outsourced under Bush. If the jobs lost are in their area and the jobs gained are in someone elses', those numbers are not going to matter. If their communities are crippled by such losses, it is not going to matter. Politics is still local. How their local economy is effected is what is going to matter. In important areas, it is not too good.

One other point, some of the areas hit the hardest by outsourcing and closing include, especially in several battleground states, the very areas most likely to tip to the Democrats in when things are economically bad for them. Bush is not going to win any more votes in Canton, Ohio or New Castle, Pennslyvania by any plant that opens up in Atlanta or Nashville.

PamS,
I'll play devil's advocate on this one. This business where Kerry and Edwards voted for the war and voted for Patriot Act really doesn't have any legs. The specifics of waging the war and implementing the Patriot Act were drawn up by the likes of Rumsfeld and Ashcroft. These two men report directly to GWB. It is these specifics that the Dems will attack.

As for healthcare, I really haven't seen anything done on this front. You outline some of the reasons healthcare costs are rising. I agree. The legal system is out of control. The pharms are price gouging us as we subsidize prescription drug prices for socialized countries. Doctors have taken advantage of a system that appears to turn a blind eye to unnecessary drugs and procedures. A total lack of knowledge at both the caregiver and consumer level in regards to cost and efficiency of both drugs and medical procedures. Very little has been done in regards to these issues as evidenced by the spike in my premium.

40 million or 28 million or whatever. What causes me the greatest heartburn is that on 8/10/04, there will be 5 more people in this country without health insurance. That would be me and my family.

PamS., here is a point. I do not want the Patriot Act renewed. There is less chance of that happening if Kerry is president. There are some Republicans who would not vote for such renewal if the man in the White House is a Democrat.

The Medicare drug benefit only got through due to pressure on enough opposition Republicans and wavering ones. Some Republicans would not have any such reason to go along with Kerry. Some Republicans will finally have more backbone and oppose stupid, bad, and dangerous ideas if those stupid, bad, and dangerous ideas emanate from a Democrat rather than a Republican. They are easier for party members to oppose then.

Well how will he keep his promise to follow the guidelines of the 9/11 commission reprt if the first thing he does is strike the Patriot Act? He voted twice for it, so what has changed that would make him do this? To get the vote of those that oppose it? The dems would need to pick up a few more seats in order to change this anyway. What exactly is bad and dangerous about this medicare drug paln, other than the fact that is another social welfare program for the poor elderly?

Oh, Ralph makes a quite good point about the Patriot Act. The problem is that, once again, the Left is badly overplaying its hand.

Why? Republicans can say, with utter honestly and not flinching, that there are several good and sensible things in it: 1) Enhancements to privacy protections for ordinary citizens, 2) The sensible ability to wiretap multiple cell phones on a single individual, and 3) The ability to subpoena library records.

Which, bite me lefties, on #3, EVERYONE BUT YOU THINKS IS A GOOD IDEA NOT A BAD ONE

All three of those swing strongly for the Patriot Act, not the other way around.

If Patriot Act critics had any fucking brains they'd be listing the parts of the Patriot Act they DON'T like that should concern everyday Americans. Instead they make the WHOLE FUCKING THING sound evil, which is just IDIOTIC.

Well no, it's not idiotic. It's great for helping the ACLU raise funds with scare tactics. But for winning voters? Forget it. Get specific or the GOP will eat your lunch idiots. And "library records" ain't gonna cut it for ANYONE.

Ralph- are you self employed? I ask because I saw how much you pay for health insurance.

If you are self employed, wouldn't that be one of the pitfalls for being your own boss?

Thanks Edmond. Good to see you as well. You make an excellent point. Up here Michigan, it seems like we've had an exodus of quality jobs for the last two decades. Gore didn't have a problem carrying the state and I don't think Kerry will either.

PamS,
Yes, I'm self-employed. I'm going on about 8 years now. It is about to end as I'm getting squeezed out.

Dean,
I'm not an expert on the Patriot Act. I was only pointing out that if the Dems can flesh out the specifics, it might not fall the GOP's way. You are 100% correct when you point out that if the Dems talk in broad generalizations about the Patriot Act, it will not be a vote getter for them.

Pam: I'm with you. The self-employed get screwed bad on health insurance. This is one area where the Dems could be eating the GOP's lunch. But they're so idiotically concerned with talking about "tax cuts for the rich" and other blathering bullshit that they aren't able to see what's right in their faces: what ACTUALLY MATTERS to EVERYDAY PEOPLE. (Hint: ENVY OF THE RICH ISN'T IT YOU FUCKING BONEHEADES!)

Edmond,
There's a real problem with this 540 billion dollar script bennie. As far as I can tell, corporations can off load people who are currently being provided retirement bennies by their employers. In fact, I saw an article in the Detroit Free Press where the auto companies were claiming this script bennie will save them hundreds of millions of dollars. If this script bennie turns out to be corporate welfare in disguise, Bush is going to have helluva time explaining it in the debates. This is yet another head scratcher from this admin.

Dean,
There are plenty of rich Democrats. Where are you going with this? If the speech yesterday was a class warfare spiel ala John Edwards, I could see your point. The problem is, they've identified a number of areas in Bush's domestic policies (or lack thereof) that are genuinely open to attack.

I do not believe you understood what I wrote. There are Republicans that will not vote to renew the Patriot Act if there is a Democrat in the White House. The renewal will not reach his desk. That point was quite clear in what I stated. It is not about Kerry, but about how the vote in Congress shall go if Kerry is in there and not Bush.

Secondly, the Medicare bill was an example of Republicans voting for something they otherwise would not because of party pressure and because the idea then had an "R" after its promoter. Neither will be true in this situation.

The bill passed was not Republican. It is not administered by the private sector or based on market principles. It only serves to bloat government more in a time of fiscal deficits. The Republicans had a chance to reform Medicare, to actually bring Republican principles into the federal government. They did not. Instead, they act like the conservative Democrats they had kicked out.

This is not Alexander Hamilton's view that not every year had to be balanced as long as you had other years following that put it back into balance.

There were stupid ideas (the farm bill), bad ideas (the drug bill), and dangerous ones (the Patriot Act). If you have not noticed, the Patriot Act was just used in a drug ring case in which assistent US Attorney Tom Greenburg admitted had noting to do with terrorism. This bill is being used for ordinary criminal cases.

I am all for divided government. Parties tend to remember their principles when they have more power to lust after. When they have too much, they spend the time trying to find ways to keep it, and that ends up meaning abandoning party principles.

Dean-I know many that aren't considered rich that are everyday hard working people that really appreciated the tax cuts as well as rebates.
I never said that the self employed get screwed on health insurance. That is one of the pitfalls to being in business for yourself. Everyone that has ever shopped for policies realizes that the more you have on the policy, the lower the premium. A self employed person needs to take that into consideration prior to taking that step. It really isn't up to your neighbor to pay for your insurance because you want to be in business for yourself. When making the business plan, one would be wise to look at all costs and figure out if their business can be competitive and profitable considering all the variables. I give anyone credit for trying, and in Ralph's case it is sad that it doesn't seem to be working out, but again, it is a risk one takes when trying to start their own business.

Edmond,
Nice post. Gridlock is good! As far as that script bennie goes, I have read that it was a Bush campaign promise. I don't remember him making it but darned if I haven't read that in a number of places. It truly is the hallmark of fiscal irresponsibility. Huge mistake.

I'm gonna call this one a triple---he intelligently laid out the differences between himself and Dubya, introduced himself to swing voters, and deflected the smear tactics of the far-right.

I thought he laid on the veteran thing a little thick, but that's a pre-emptive strike against the paid GOP sirty tricks campaigns like swiftvets.com.

I'm in the choir so he didn't have to convince me---and nothing he does will convince the misinformed zealots on the right..

This will be a very tight, hard-fought battle, and throughout his speech I kept thinking "You better not fuck this up, Kerry. There is too much at stake."

Good summation Don!

OOPS! That should read "the paid GOP dirty tricks campaigns like swiftvets.com." Mea culpa

I wasn't impressed, but then I laughed through a lot of it, so maybe I missed something. Big ideas. Heh. Right.

Par for the course, I suppose. For me, he struck out. Sorry, the Democrats tried desperately, but Kerry still could not give me a good reason why I should vote for him.

The usual politician's promises: Something for everybody. A guaranteed job, free health care, free federally-controlled education (under John Dewey, of course). A chicken in every pot. Two (environmentally-safe) cars in every garage. Three spotted owls in every tree. And a balanced budget, to boot? Hmmm....

Bush will promise all the same, of course, though he may forget to mention that historic trademark of the Grand Old Party: fiscal integrity. "Deficits don't matter." Senator Goldwater, Senator Dirksen, Senator Taft, President McKinley, and every other Old Guard Republican must be spinning in their graves.

As to the Patriot Act and Attorneys General who don't respect the Constitution: I have nothing against the Patriot Act when it's used to fight terrorists, but Attorney General Ashcroft is also using it to stamp out all the "vices" he hates: drugs, pornography, on-line gambling.... Stick to fighting terrorism, man! That's what we're paying you to do.

I will say this in Ashcroft's defense, though: at least he hasn't yet gassed or burned anybody because he didn't like their religion or their guns. Will Kerry's Attorney General be better than Janet Reno? We'll just have to see, I guess....

Here's a parallel between the two candidates: Kerry wants to wage Marxist-style class war on the evil 2% who have too much money. Bush wages a "culture war" against another hated minority, including supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban their marriages in every state. The capitalists. The homosexuals. The Jews (excuse me, Zionists) next? Hmmm....

The one significant difference between the two candidates is that Kerry wants to wait for another 9/11, another 3000 Americans murdered, before he'll take action -- with the permission of the U.N., of course. We are at War, and the President is and must be the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, above all else.

Therefore, I will have to vote for Bush just to keep Kerry out. I hope he wins, but to punish him for the FMA, I hope it will be a narrow victory so as to deny him the "mandate" he craves. I will also vote for Democrats for the House and the Senate so as to produce as much gridlock as possible. Gridlock is good! Checks and balances, as our Founding Fathers intended. I want both parties to block each other's legislation, judicial appointments, and Constitutional amendments as much as possible. Government governs best that governs least.

Deep center-field triple. As ID Bill said: “Kerry looks like a president. He sounds like a president. Yet he offered little more than platitudes.” For who Kerry was talking to and what he had to accomplish, that’s pretty close to perfect.

Maynard,
I had almost the same reaction as your wife to the “West Wing” bit. I didn’t think much of it when I heard it before and including it in his acceptance speech; well, yuck.

Kerry will have plenty of time and the debates to lay-out a detailed policy on terrorism. Not pissing off our allies IS a terribly important first step if we’re not going to simply invade every country on that planet that might have a cell or two. I’d also like to hear how US policy is going to bring much stronger pressure to bare on the Saudi and Pakistani regimes to clamp down on fundamentalist Wahabi indoctrination.

Edmond the Libertarian:
“The Medicare drug benefit only got through due to pressure on enough opposition Republicans and wavering ones."

Not to mention, underreporting (charitable characterization) the projected cost by nearly a third, or $134 billion. I will expect a great deal more transparency and honesty from a Kerry administration (could we have less?).

“The Republicans had a chance to reform Medicare, to actually bring Republican principles into the federal government.”

Um, Edmond? I think you are presuming facts not in evidence (at least, not since Goldwater). Substitute “conservative” for “Republican” and I take your point.

Dean Esmay:
“And you voted in favor of giving the President authority to go to war. Senator Kerry, were you misleading the public then, or are you misleading the public now? If not, can you please explain yourself and why you would say something so divisive to a nation at war?"

That’s easy: “ I believed the intelligence provided by the administration and the president. And I trusted the president with the authority to go to war as a last resort. I was wrong on both counts.”

Dean Esmay:
“If Patriot Act critics had any fucking brains they'd be listing the parts of the Patriot Act they DON'T like that should concern everyday Americans. Instead they make the WHOLE FUCKING THING sound evil, which is just IDIOTIC.”

Well, if you’re so concerned with what a Kerry Administration might do with the Patriot Act, perhaps you should do some homework:

“In the [PBS] Online NewsHour's Vote-by-Issues Quiz, Kerry criticized some of the activities he felt have resulted from enforcement of the Patriot Act, saying:

-‘We must stop indefinitely detaining American citizens and give basic rights to those who are detained. American citizens should have the right to a lawyer and foreign citizens should be given the right to hearings to determine their status.

- We need more oversight of 'sneak and peek' searches to assure strong safeguards on the use of roving wiretaps and the seizing of library and business records.

- We need to use terrorism laws to combat terrorism and not in ordinary criminal cases, or to send the FBI to churches or anti-war demonstrations.

- We need to mandate regular reporting to Congress of all anti-terrorism activities and follow established protocols to protect privacy and security.’

Kerry has said that while he would keep provisions of the act that help fight the war on terror, improve information sharing among law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and cut terrorist funding, he would make some changes.”

Ralph Stephan,

18,000 a year for a family insurance plan?

Give me a break. Shop around and/or assume some small amount of risk (e.g. deductable). Or find another job that does better wrt health plans...

Unfortunately a "single payer" system has no practical upper bound in cost...

Meaningful tort reform would take 15% off of health care costs (and add 5% or so to provider profits)... more importantly it would level out the growth curve...

vtrtl:
Meaningful tort reform would take 15% off of health care costs (and add 5% or so to provider profits)... more importantly it would level out the growth curve...”

Stripping the system of insurance company profits, insurance executive compensation, insurance industry lobbying and customer charge-backs for their losses on Wall Street would save a lot more.

A side note: Full coverage Medical Insurance in Canada is anywhere from free to $30./mo, depending the province. Full coverage means "everything" excluding dental. No there are not waiting lines ( except for elective surgery like in the US)... yes, they have all the same technology and in some cases even better technology. I cannot understand why Americans support the system we have when every other industrialized country in the world has national medical plans which work just fine, thank you. I lived under Canada's plan for over a quarter of century and never, ever had a single problem with it.

Kerry's speech plus that film and the other speeches filled me in a lot more on who Kerry was and what the platform amounted to and in that I'd give it a third base rating. The slogan "Help is on the way" sucks, but so it goes.

Kerry will kill Bush in the debates considering his adminstration's record, Kerry's professional debating skills and George's lack of extemporaneous language skills. Subtract the fear mongering techniques centered around 9/11 and the Republicans are in deep deep doo doo.

It was nice to see the Dems head left again and act unashamed of their liberal stance.

Since when does Kerry have debating skills?

I think the contrast between Bush and Kerry in a debate will seal the deal for Bush. Kerry comes across like a pompous ass.

Shep, when I speak of Republican principles, I mean Republicanism based on political principles, not specific outcomes based on unspoken principles.

These principles include what I had stated in the comment about Medicare, the private sector, and market principles. Republicanism is not a statist solution done as cheaply as possible. It is not the cost that makes it Republican. It is how and who administers the program, and on what principles it operates. I would advise you, if you care for any of my advice :-), to read Order of Battle, A Republican's Call to Reason, I believe is the title. It was written by the late Sen. Jacob Javits around 1964.

It gives an excellent outline of Republican principles, especially on economics. A conservative solution is not necessarily a Republican one. This he shows quite clearly.

I will grant, Shep, that I do not see how any Kerry administration could have been less transparent in the Medicare bill debate than was the Bush administration. Thanks for reminding of the other facts that irked me about Bush's handling of it. How can we have less? I doubt it, unless Bush has some other bright idea about getting one group or another's vote and tops his own record. :-)

However, what I stated is classical Republican principles, and the elements of the modern leadership have the burden of pursuasion to show why their deviations from this principles of the Party of Lincoln are justified. I need not explain why I insist on uphold the principles upon which this party was founded.

You want Canada's health care system, move to Canada. I shudder to think of that tyrannical mess. We need at least one place in the world that thinks doctors should have liberty. Am I the only one who thinks doctors should have freedom?

Of course we need tort reform. I would like loser pays, except it discriminates against poor people. Don't know enough about it yet.

shep wants to get rid of insurance company profits. Profits are the sign of a healthy economic system. Myself, I need lower blood pressure, lower heart rate and lower cholesterol. But I wouldn't want any of them to go to zero. So many political ideas have no economic reality behind them...

Yours,
Wince

You want Canada's health care system, move to Canada. I shudder to think of that tyrannical mess.

Love America or leave it? Don't be an ass. That's nothing more than avoiding the arugment just like it was when it was used against the anti-war protestors during Viet Nam.

I shudder to think of that tyrannical mess.

You obviously know zero about the Canadian system and are just responding with knee jerk mottos.

So many political ideas have no economic reality behind them...

yeah, like ones just spewed...Americans pay far more per capita than Canadians for health care so how that fit your healthy system arguement...and besides since when are profits the only measure of a healthy system.

You need to get out of your ideological gulag once in a while.

Wince, it is not merely about the doctor's liberty. It is also about the liberty of the patients to be able to choose their health care and their health care professionals. It is also about trust in the private sector and the free market to be able to administer and provide health care solutions. I know I am not disagreeing, I thought I might mention these points.

I am most certainly not saying that there is no role for the government in assisting in the health care crisis. However, there are Republican principles that some of us believe that govern how that assistance takes place.

A letter to the Wall Street Journal today reminded me of something. Maybe it is about time we start applying anti-trust laws to insurance companies. It is at the bottom of the page for my fellow WSJ readers out there.

Tort reform as people are pushing is not the solution. What is needed is removing so much "arbitrary and capricious" regulations. So many of them are arbitrary and capricious, yet I have only seen once where a court actually found that that an adminstrative law regulation was such. If you want to lower health costs, those are two steps to take.

I am not looking forward to the Bush-Kerry debates. I think the Cheney-Edwards debate shall be much more entertaining. Do you think someone can arrange for Patrick Leahy to be in the front row of the audience?

Cul,
While managing to be condescending, hateful and generally unpersuasive, you also neglect to point out the shortcomings of Canada's socialized approach to medicine (what a surprise), and they are many. Canada has a much higher percentage of general practitioners and fewer specialists, making the wait to see a specialist several months and even years in some cases. Canadian doctors make only about 70% of what doctor's in the States make which has lead to an exodus of the best and brightest for the US. I could go on but it may be more illustrative to let a the Fraser Institute's 2004 report, "How Good is Canadian Health Care? An International Comparison of Health Care Systems" do the talking for me:

"The comparative evidence is that the Canadian health care model is inferior to others that are in place in the OECD. It produces inferior age-adjusted access to physicians and technology, produces longer waiting times, is less successful in preventing deaths from preventable causes, and costs more than any of the other systems that have comparable objectives. The models that produce superior results and cost less than Canada’s monopoly-insurer, monopoly-provider system have: user fees; alternative, comprehensive, private insurance; and private hospitals that compete for patient demand. The overwhelming evidence is that, in comparative terms, Canada’s system of health care delivery under-performs, and needs to emulate the more successful models available elsewhere in those countries that offer their citizens universal access to health care. (emphasis added)

Also from the Fraser Institute report:
This system of health care provision, from which appropriate incentives have all but vanished and innovative thinking has been eliminated by the constrictive rules laid out in the Canada Health Act, has resulted in the progressive rationing of health care.

One of the supposed benefits of the single payer plan is that effective planning eliminates expensive duplication of facilities and expensive equipment, but that translates into greater travel distances for health care and longer waiting times for things like CT scans and MRIs. In effect the Canadian system results in a rationing of health care. When there are just 4 MRI machines per million people, and only 11 CT scanners per million and little more than 23,000 doctors for a nation of 32 million people you have to expect rationing. In the US free market incentives and competition have actually led to an increase in the availability of services like CT scans and MRIs, so not only are they easier to come by, they're also cheaper here as well.

For the entire report just click the link below. BTW, The Fraser Institute is an independent non-partisan public policy organization located in Vancouver, Canada. Link to the whole report (NOTE: It's in PDF format)

Bunch of promises he can't keep, the standard Democrat pablum. 90% of the people in attendance want us out of Iraq. Well, Kerry can't promise that, can he?

Bush will make promises. It will sound like pap too.

God, I miss the days when the argument was all about whether government programs can make your life better or make it worse.

Maynard,

Nice pick of data...The Fraser Institute is hardly non-partisan (where the heck you get that idea? from them?) its a right wing conservative think tank frequently found to have fudged facts and figures scrawled to support capitalist ideas at the expense of socialist ideas.

I spent the last 20 years in Vancouver before repatriating to the States last December. I'll stick by my experience over 30 years of actually being in Canada under the system and having followed all sorts of politics from the right up there persistently trying to privatize the health care system.

And you are avoiding mentioning the fact that every single person in Canada is covered at zero or very modest costs to the individual while the system in the US leaves 10's of millions completely without insurance and 10's of millions more paying outrageous amounts for basic coverage.
I'll bet you if you cut the propaganda crap and offered those Americans left out of the loop by the US system they would vote for the system in Canada in an instant.

Just check the number of seniors and others having to bus to Canada just to get reasonable drug prices. They are voting with their wallets and their feet, aren't they?

What's the reaction by the government to such things? Putting out constant BS about Canada's drugs being possibly subpar, when they are in fact manufacted by the same companies providing the drugs in the US and suggesting that Canada doesn't have an equally cautious equivolent to the FDA to monitor such things as drug quality, when in fact, Canada's drug quality criteia are even tougher than in the US.

The propaganda from the pharmaceutical companies, the AMA, the insurance companies, the US government and its agencies and the capitalist think tanks are so transparent on these issues to anyone living outside of the United States that it is considered a joke.

I know, all the rest of the industrialized world is stupid to have national health plans and the US is smart enough to avoid them. Can we spell hubris?

cul,

Excuse me...Ireland has national health care but it has less than 4.5 million people. It can afford
a national health care system. Canada has 33 million people. The USA has 233 million people. There might be a slight discrepancy in total health care costs here. I don't know if Canada's health care system is efficient or not. But I do know USA's actual medical care qualitatively is the best in the world. The USA can actually go to a national health care system but it will actually mean severely increased costs and lowered medical care quality. What's the argument here ?

ps. here's a good history of the Fraser Institute and where they are coming from...non-partisan and supposedly balanced indeed.

catch22,

au contraire... a socialized medical system will be by per capita measure cheaperand the size of the population is irrelvant. the big losers in such a national health care scheme are the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies which in every country that national health care been instituted have and screamed and raised all sorts of spectres of doom to the very nature of medicine on the way out the profiteering picture.

Wince and Nod asked:
"Am I the only one who thinks doctors should have freedom?"

No, Wince, you are not. I, too, am against enslaving the doctors.

hahahaha "enslaving the doctors"... I think Canadian doctors would take issue with that label. You guys are too much.

cul,

You're right. Its cheaper. And presumably the ideal national health care system of factual note to be the best or at least the cheapest especially in regard to capitalist enterprises such as insurance and drug companies would be China. My point is the "quality" of medical care delivered in a "timely" manner. Like the lady in Toronto said, "it's a five minute walk for a five hour wait." Any national health care system will negate that quality, save perhaps for the government politicians and noteworthy politico's. And in this nation, that is already a fact. Just check out the Senators, Congressmen and cabinet officiers and see where they get their treatment and who pays for it. Yet, there is another methodology applied to congressional legislation from which they are immune. It's called," we have ours, now we'll throw some hamburger to the dogs, once in a while". That will get us more votes.

Catch 22, by your reasoning about the respective demographics of Ireland, Canada, and the US, do you think that each state should adopt a Canada-style health care system or perhaps Congress should implement some form of regional, multi-state system, with say, all of New England under one such program, maybe the Mid-Atlantic states in one, and perhaps the five Great Lake states in another, to give three examples?

We could divide the states into rationally grouped regions that would answer the demographic problems. Is this what you really want?

Cul, there are some who talk about free trade and the free movement of good and services a great deal until it hurts large corporations. Then they forget about such and turn into Pat Buchannon.

If the drug companies do not like Canadian policies, they can go up there and lobby for change or not produce in or ship into Canada their pharmaceutical products. They obviously are making enough to continue to do so despite the system.

I disagree with the idea that there is a perfect system. The Canadian system has its imperfections, some are going to have to admit. They are not just frozen Americans. They will have to address the problems of the long waiting times in a way that fits the Canadian system. However, the American system should be fixed in ways befitting our system of governance and health care. It can be without going to a completely new health care system. Minimum disruption to the health care system whilst fixing the problems that the system has means reaching progressive goals whilst having a conservative respect for the system in place, moderation when dealing with any diruptions that effect real people, and a constant view of the progressive end in mind.

Edmond,

I agree for the most with what you say, except that the "long waiting times" everyone keeps repeating are completely outside of my actual experience with the health care system in Canada. I'm not saying the system in Canada is perfect, but it is practical and its been in place for decades while the US keeps dicking around trying to re-invent the wheel. I do not dispute that in some respects the US system has more to offer a minority of people, but it comes at an enormous price which a majority of our citizens can (ignore the pun) ill-afford.

If any culture on the planet can afford to have a national health plan for all of its citizens it is ours. I would even accept a two tiered system for say a decade in which basic health care is given to all and non-emergency medical treaments are user paid by private insurance plans and individuals who can afford it. But to continue decrying the use of a rational national health care plan simply because it is perceived in a knee-jerk manner as "socialist" is just ridiculous. So what if its socialist?...the US is already a mixed economy and its not like the US operates on a free market scheme except in our dreams.

"...by your reasoning about the respective demographics of Ireland, Canada, and the US, do you think that each state should adopt a Canada-style health care system or perhaps Congress should implement some form of regional, multi-state system, with say, all of New England under one such program, maybe the Mid-Atlantic states in one, and perhaps the five Great Lake states in another, to give three examples? (Catch 22)

Is this what you really want? " (Edmond)

No, Absolutely not.

My point is no bureaucracy can ever insure quality of service. Quality must come from the individual provider from the inherency of the quality of their own being and understanding and committment.

You're right there isn't a perfect system. But the best quality medical care is here in USA.

National health care will dilute that quality of service. It’s guaranteed to by its very bureaucracy because it places "quality of care" in charge of politicians and the implementers of the policy become functionaries even though they may be called Doctor.

Any quality health care system must ensure that Doctors "own" their medical license and not have their "practices" dictated by bureaucratic functionaries. And, I am not disavowing any proper role for state medical boards of licensures. Canada has a fixed system. Now it needs to find a way to ensure quality. But the politicians decide that. Who wants politicians guaranteeing the quality of care ?

A modest example. I know if I go to Sears or Allstate or whomever and get auto insurance, they will sell me a policy. But I can guarantee you, I can get better coverage, better quality service and quicker response with less hassle with my carrier of some 30 years. Why would one change that in for a national auto insurance policy scheme ?

Where cul is coming from ? I think he wants free welfare-health care for all. I suppose he also wants free clothes for the naked and a living wage for those that don’t work.

And I'm sure if you vote for Kerry he will give you anything you want as long as it doesn't come from his financial acounts.

catch22,

My point is no bureaucracy can ever insure quality of service.

What is that, religious doctrine?

How about the FDA?, how about the AMA?

It sounds to me that you are just against national health care on principle and not necessarily ones that have any application to reality. Bureaucrats no more control the dispensation of quality health care in Canada than they do here....oh wait, actually its less in Canada, here its the HMO's that determine medical treatment isn't it? And I might ask again, what is the point of having a high quality system if no one can afford to use it?

"the rising cost of healthcare"

Ahem...no thanks to Senator Edwards and other anti-tort reform lawyers.

You get what you pay for, as England clearly shows with their free dental program. Personally, I'm more than happy to shell out a few hundred bucks to a person who spent more time in school than most of us spend in our marriages. I mean, that /is/ the point of being a professional. And let's face it, if you drive down the prices the doctors get screwed and I DON'T want an embittered surgeon performing my open heart surgery.

Yes, there are frivolous lawsuits, but most hospitals carry insurrance for that. THE HOSPITALS CARRY THE INSURRANCE. And most settle out of court. And they really aren't that frivolous when you think about it (wrong blood type organ transplanted, spongue/watch/tweezers/bloody gauze left in a person post-op).

And besides, that is what trial lawyers DO. That's like saying, "Damn the postman for delivering bills!" -or- "The garbage man stole my trash!" Not to defend Edwards, but I'm so sick and tired of hearing people seem surprised that as a trial lawyer he happened to file law suits. He could just as easily have been a public defender. My what mud that would have caused: He defended people who committed heinous crimes and tried to support their "not guilty" plea!

:: sigh ::

Let's take this away from personal attacks and back to the issues. I want to know why as a recent college graduate, I can't get a job. And why all of the comp sci people I know can't get a job. (outsourcing to India) I want to know why I need a tax cut and what government programs that I benefit from are being cut with my taxes. Maybe I'm the one american who doesn't mind paying for what I use. I'm not cheap. And I want to know why, in a secular nation, both parties are using the words "values" and "good christian" in reference to their candidate and political party. Wasn't there a time, just recently, when we wanted government NOT TO DICTATE values to us? Where we wanted to raise our own kids? Where are our collective memories?

cul,
You are right of course. The question is: which is better, a for-profit, free-market insurance bureaucracy interfering with your medical care or an elected governmental bureaucracy interfering with your medical care. I think that other western industrialized nations have adequately proven that removing the profit motive (as well non-provider profits) from the system, in favor of industry regulation by government, provides a consistently better healthcare cost/benefit for average citizens.

Infamous J:

I agree with you that doctors are worth the money we pay for their services, but...

"I DON'T want an embittered surgeon performing my open heart surgery."

Well, they are mostly embittered already. You shouldn't worry about this though. They are, as you say, professionals

"Yes, there are frivolous lawsuits, but most hospitals carry insurrance for that. THE HOSPITALS CARRY THE INSURRANCE."

Most doctors don't work for hospitals, nice try.

"I want to know why as a recent college graduate, I can't get a job."

Could be a hundred different reasons J, but I bet it's Bush's fault, right?

"And why all of the comp sci people I know can't get a job.(outsourcing to India)"

That, or maybe the times have changed. Comp Sci just isn't the golden ticket anymore. Times change, boo hoo. Maybe those people you know should move to India, that's where all the jobs are right?

"Maybe I'm the one American who doesn't mind paying for what I use."

Imagery of a lonely patriot, how touching. Actually, we all "don't mind" paying for what we use. It's working our asses off for what we have, going to the grocery store, and seeing some bitch with a fresh manicure and $100 dollar highlights in her hair whip out her fucking food stamp card that pisses US off. This is why we believe in words like "reform".

"And I want to know why, in a secular nation, both parties are using the words "values" and "good christian" in reference to their candidate and political party."

What secular nation are you referring to J? Sorry to be rude, but that's the stupidest line in this thread so far. These things are invoked exactly because we are NOT a secular nation, duh.

Oh yeah, “Christian” is capitalized.

What secular nation are you referring to J? Sorry to be rude, but that's the stupidest line in this thread so far. These things are invoked exactly because we are NOT a secular nation, duh.

sec·u·lar
1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6. Lasting from century to century.

We are indeed a secular nation in the sense that there is neither a state approved religion nor are we a theology. The "Establishment Clause" guarantees this. Just becasue we were founded by religious pilgrims escaping persecution, and the fact that the vast majority of Americans considerthemselves religious, does not magically transform our system of government into a non-secular institution.

It is separate and should remain so. The freedom of religion also encompasses the freedom from religion.

The American government is secular. The American people are not. In fact, the American people are known to be the most religious people in the Western world. We have thousands of religions to choose from. I like it that way. Government has no right to force a religion-based morality on me or anyone else, particularly not in my bedroom. But religious people, including Christians of every stripe, have the right to express their beliefs in public. That neither breaks my leg not picks my pocket, as Thomas Jefferson put it.

Values are those things, ideals, or beloved persons which one acts to gain and/or keep. We should each have values, pursue them, uphold them -- selfishly. I wish more people would talk about their values. My highest values, from which all my other derive: Polytheistic Godliness, Selfishness, Sexiness. Up With Beauty!

double.

he opened his speech up to welcome people who self-identify with religion or the military. the Clintons actively excluded and ridiculed these groups. if they can maintain that stance - simply that people from these groups will not be ridiculed for their beliefs - even if they get no voice in the party or administration, then he will have created a large if silent constituency. i expect that he will not be able to maintain that for long though.

Steven Malcom Anderson

Thanks, Steven, for making the point that while our government is secular (Good)we as a people are not. We have the best of all worlds where nobody makes me go to church or pay for a state church but I can choose any one of several hundred variations of theological thought to follow and groups to worship with...or mediate with...or be at one in spirit with...or run around trees naked (in private, of course) at midnight with and no government official will stop me naked . We got it all.

And I agree with every word you said. Oh, by-the-way, sometime will you explain what Polytheistic Godliness is? Is that your own original personal religious faith or do other's
share it?

Dear Jane M.:

"Polytheistic Godliness" is my own phrasing, but polytheistic religions have predominated throughout most of human history, from prehistory to Sumer and Egypt to the Greeks and Romans, the Celts and Vikings, to modern-day revivals of these. In saying this, I in no sense intend to deprecate Christianity or Judaism. Freedom of religion for all!

Steven

Thanks. I suspected that you were referring to ancient expressions of numerous Gods but had was wondering if you had given it a more modern day adaptation. I know from what you have said on numerous occasions that you advocate total religious freedom and yourself respect those that practice the more usual conventional monotheistic faiths found in the world at large. You are an inspiration for tolerance.

I have several friends who follow more unusual religious expression and am always interested in knowing more than just the superficial when it comes to belief in God, etc.

Bob B.

Do you ever get the notion that others can clearly see your bigotry whenever an extreme, unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a cause when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival not requiring a judgment that the person is right or wrong in his opinion, only that he is blind and unreasoning in coming to it when used pejoratively to imply that the attacked person is unreasoning and wrong ?

The tenor of your comment suggests that you do understand that those who get it are intelligent readers even though your entry appears to be simply “copy and paste” email spam rhetoric.

Other than being off topic what exactly is your position in your own words ?

Looks like it's time for another troll-banning.

I believe someone here must be slightly irritated.

I never knew Bush was responsible for so many evils in the world! One man, not Congress nor the career people in various agencies, just one man has accomplished all that! How does he do it?

Sigh! So much evil to do, so little time! Is Bush going to blast off in a Big Boy this January or shall we have to wait until January 2009 for that to happen?

Hey Bob,

My site, my money pays for it, my rules. Don't like it? Tough shit.

I'm amazed at the number of people who still believe we were fighting the "world communism" in Vietnam. Wake up dullards. We were fighting for the continuation of repressive colonial regime. The people of Vietnam were fighting a national was aganist foreigners.... us.

Kerry was right. Read the Pentagon Papers.

jesus fuckin christ get a clue.

I'm amazed at the number of people who still believe we were fighting the "world communism" in Vietnam. Wake up dullards. We were fighting for the continuation of repressive colonial regime. The people of Vietnam were fighting a national was aganist foreigners.... us.

Kerry was right. Read the Pentagon Papers.

jesus fuckin christ get a clue.