Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Presidential Debate Rematch
| User | Post |
hhallahh
Posts: 392/607 |
Granted, Kerry's program is not entirely run by the government, but there will be important decisions made by the government. For example, the government paying for 75% of "catastrophic" medical bills. They will, of course, determine what these are and then where will the money come from? That's what I'm curious about, and if you have any information on that, I would love to see it. The same for how he plans on providing health care for millions more people. I just want to see where this funding comes from, and how it could possibly not affect our taxes.
Health care is not an issue I'm that great with, but I'd assume that Kerry's plan would involve negotiating with drug companies for lower drug costs, which the new Medicare bill doesn't allow. Also, he says that he supports importation of drugs from other countries, which will drastically lower health care costs, but will also screw with pharmaceutrical companies' profits, which may not be a great thing to do... I can't account for the Kerry plan dollar by dollar, obviously, but there are some ideas in there which should lower costs in theory. More information, I think, is available at his website.
Of course, supply and demand does influence the military. But then again, when something like 9/11 happens, the entire country is in an uproar because we were underfunded, understaffed, and underprepared. Our number of troops is too low to fight safely, and there are few ways of increasing that amount.
I don't know how much this could be blamed on Clinton. America does not keep a large standing army during peacetime, and to my knowledge the military didn't have any problems recruiting whatever number of soldiers that they set out to recruit. I think that we had the resources to put more troops in Iraq if we had pleased.... but it was the Bush administration that decided that we could do it with only 100,000 soldiers. If there aren't enough troops now, this could hardly be blamed on Clinton.
If the pay is poor and the living conditions are bad... you always have the freedom to quit. While I don't think providing illegal housing can be justified, paycuts and a scaling back of benefits are the natural consequences of an evaporated demand in a given industry. I mean, I'm sure your complaints are the same in structure as the complaints of many people who have relied on manufacturing jobs which are quickly being sent overseas... while the difference with the military may lie in the fact that the government is directly responsible for your welfare, and you may be inclined to vote for whatever President is most likely to fund the military and improve your welfare... at the same time, it's hard to make an argument from your own self-interest which will appeal to others. You can argue that it's Clinton fault that we're having trouble in Iraq, but I don't think you'd have a very strong case. I haven't even seen conservative authors really make that argument before. And if Clinton's military operates perfectly fine, then you'll be hard-pressed to argue that we should've kept funding it at Cold War levels. |
NetSplit
Posts: 2/117 |
Boomer: I wouldn't ever believe a single word that comes out of Michael Moore's mouth. His movies are propaganda and little more.
Seph2k4:
1. How does one's ability to speak affect one's ability to lead?
2. When did he knowingly lie about Iraq? Bush doesn't gather the intelligence himself; it's not his job. He's not in charge of verifying information that he is given - he is expected to act on the information he is given as if it is accurate because it is supposed to be accurate. To his knowledge, it was accurate, and he made his decisions based on that.
3. So what? This shows that Bush is willing to make unpopular decisions if he believes them to be right; he won't buckle under popular opinion (which, mind you, isn't always right). It's not a popularity contest, after all.
4. He didn't turn his attention away from Osama during the Iraq war. The two things are not mutually exclusive; both can be done at once. The battle against Al Qaeda continued during the war in Iraq. Also, Bush didn't legalize assault weapons - the ban expired. There's a big difference. Additionally, please consult this link regarding the ban: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3777.html
5. How does one's ability to debate affect one's ability to lead? It's the same argument as number 1.
Please, if you hate the president, let it be for good reasons. I honestly think he's done a much better job than people give him credit for. You shouldn't just jump on the Anti-Bush bandwagon just because everyone seems to be doing it.
To be fair, I do disagree with Bush on some things, named abortion and gay marriage, and his stance on stem cell research could use a little more work. However, it's fairly difficult to fully agree with a candidate on every issue.
There are my two cents. |
Seph2k4
Posts: 392/619 |
Some reasons to hate Bush...
1) His speeches. Oh, what pleasure it is to hear him say the word "uh" every 5 seconds and stuff he already repeated. He also needs to learn the English language.
2) The fact that he lied to his own people in order to start a pointless war... *coughIRAQWARcough*, and said it was the right one. You people still want this clown in office?
3) The fact that, now thanks to him, a LOT of the world hates us.
4) He NEVER takes into account the many mistakes he's made as President... ie: Iraq incident, turning his attention from Osama to Sadam in the midst of capturing him and Al Quida, legalizing automatic weapons (hint hint!), doing nothing to break all ties with nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorist networks, and I could go on forever.
5) He can't debate... hell, I wouldn't be surprised if someone on this board were to take his place in the debate and astoundingly did better than Bush... well, maybe not in terms of debating and getting his or her point across, but I'm sure they could do a better job of talking at least.
|
Lunar Depths
Posts: 44/67 |
Interesting site, I appreciate the information.
Granted, Kerry's program is not entirely run by the government, but there will be important decisions made by the government. For example, the government paying for 75% of "catastrophic" medical bills. They will, of course, determine what these are and then where will the money come from? That's what I'm curious about, and if you have any information on that, I would love to see it. The same for how he plans on providing health care for millions more people. I just want to see where this funding comes from, and how it could possibly not affect our taxes.
Of course, supply and demand does influence the military. But then again, when something like 9/11 happens, the entire country is in an uproar because we were underfunded, understaffed, and underprepared. Our number of troops is too low to fight safely, and there are few ways of increasing that amount. Yes, there are some areas where money can be removed from the military, but there are others that should never be touched. Military benefits are an example of those. Housing that is too small and technically illegal, schools that are falling apart, improper material, and even pay. A person who first enlists in the military gets paid an extremely minimal pay, and if they have a family, it's a guarantee that that family will live on food stamps. The housing is absolutely ridiculous. When stationed at Nellis AFB in Las Vegas, Nevada, one of the most important bases to the Air Force for reasons that can't be said, our house was absolutely trashy. It was a three bedroom home, 900 sq. ft. total with asbestace (excuse the spelling, I'm unsure of it) underneath the floor tiles, lead based paint, and an ant infestation. The first two things are illegal. The military cannot afford to build new housing because their priority is the safety of the men and women who serve, the family comes next. My point is simply that we should maintain a healthy level of protection at all times, regardless of the "peaceable" time. It's a mindset like that that leaves a country open for attack. If you are not ready and prepared at any time, when the time does come we won't be ready. Like now for example. Now that we need troops and supplies, we have a lack of them.
Secondly, I did not mean planes fell apart in a battle setting. They were simply practicing. It happened once or twice at Nellis, when pilots would go up to check the planes, keep their feet wet in the business of flying, and the plane would crash out in the desert killing the pilot. You probably didn't hear about it because at that time no one really paid much attention to the military. Pre-9/11 was unconcerned, but it did matter to military news which is why I'm aware of it.
And on a side note, if this is Clinton's military, why is not also Clinton's economy? It follows the same path. Each president inherits the previous president's military, economy, problems, and successes. So I find it interesting that people are more than willing to give Clinton credit for the military, but give him none for the state of our economy.
Here are some facts about Clinton, though, just to throw them out there. The Clinton stretched our military forces thin. Between 1960 and 1991, the United States Army conducted 10 "operational events." In the past eight years, the Army has conducted 26 operational events --- 2 1/2 times that number in 1/3 the time span. Since the end of the Gulf War, our military has shrunk by 40 percent. Army divisions have dropped from 18 to 10. The Army has reduced its ranks by more than 630,000 soldiers and civilians and closed over 700 installations at home and overseas. Since 1990, the Air Force has shrunk from 36 fighter wings (active and reserve) to 20. The Air Force has downsized by nearly 40 percent while simultaneously experiencing a fourfold increase in operational commitments. The armed services suffered a severe ammunition shortfall going into the Kosovo engagement. According to the Service Chiefs, the FY99 ammunition shortfall for the Marine Corps was $193 million. For the Army in FY00, it was a shocking $3.5 billion. The average age of the B-52H bombersnow in use in the Balkansis 37 years old. The average age of the Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV) is 26 years old. Over 90 percent of the spending that Clinton sought to cut using his line-item veto authority was for military programs. If you want some more, just let me know. I have no problem offering it. |
hhallahh
Posts: 391/607 |
Here's a reasonably fair analysis of the distortions made by both parties in the latest debate. Note, Lunar Depths, that Bush's attack on Kerry's health care plan as being "run by the government" is completely false. It's a shame he can get away with attacks like that.
Also, if you're a good conservative, you know that supply and demand governs resource allocation in our economy... after the Cold War ended, there simply wasn't a demand for a huge army, and so it would have simply been stupid to maintain a military budget at Cold War levels. Implying that this is unfair is tantamount to saying that the law of supply and demand should be overlooked for the sake of a bloated governmental organ... this is exactly the major problem of beauracracies to being with, that those with vested interests in the beauracracy will always whine for more resources and power at the expense of money going to endeavors that are actually worthwhile.
I never heard about "planes falling apart in midair" or whatever. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the missions of Clinton's military (in Iraq, Haiti, Serbia, Kosovo, etc.) were all quite successful. It's true that 9/11 changed the picture, but no one says that the military is incapable of fighting the war(s) we're fighting (which is being fought with Clinton's army still, if you believe the famous saying that a President fights with the army of his predecessor)... most of the criticism lies in the lack of troops and poor planning. So really, if you're going to complain about Clinton's policies about the military, it's stupid to do so simply because you or your family have a vested interest in the military. If there are legitimate problems in the military from the period of 1996-2004 which have made us unable to deal with problems in the way we should, I'd like to hear them. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 1462/5458 |
Kerry = Catholic, best thing going for either of the candidates in my opinion. |
Boomer
Posts: 297/318 |
Fahrenheit 9/11 and the Bush game. They reveal the truth, and Bush's "Operation Deez" in Iraq. Bush is going down, and Nadar's going to prevail.  |
Lunar Depths
Posts: 43/67 |
Oh man, sorry it took so long to respond, but I've been a little busy. Yes I'm aware that I am probably the one and only Bushist on this board, but frankly, I don't care. I'm not attacking you, so don't even think about attacking me.
I base this on experience and knowledge about the military that I doubt any single one of you have. My father served, my grandfather served, my great grandfather's served, and my boyfriend is currently serving. I've grown up in the military life since the day I was born, living in Europe, living in the United States, and experiencing every branch of the military. While Clinton was President, my father's pay went down quite a bit. He shut down all missile defense facilities. He decreased funding so our planes, tanks, armour, and weapons are now out of date and falling apart. Literally. I know you probably remember the stories of our fighter jets falling apart in midair and killing soldiers. If you didn't, I guess you can thank the American media for that because it was all over military news.
Secondly, I said nothing about who won the debate or who said the truth most often or anything, just to clarify. Personally, I really don't like either of them all that much, but I'm taking the less of the two evils. I just don't like Kerry, he gives me a bad feeling and I don't trust people who don't make a firm stand on an issue. Plus, I'm conservative in my views towards abortion so that affects my voting as well. I also HIGHLY disagree with Kerry's health care plan because personally, I don't believe in the government controlling everything, and having high taxes so some people who are too lazy to get a job and get themselves off welfare and quit having kids can have health care on my money. Sorry, but that's how I feel.
I think it's amusing that you think Kerry uses facts to back up what he says and is somehow not repetitive. The only things I heard Kerry talk about were skewed statistics and his resume of friends, to include the late Christopher Reeves, RIP. And yes, those statistics are extremely skewed, and presented in a way to misinform the public. Mostly because people in this country typically do not have brains large enough to foster self-created thought. Instead, they listen to the media and people who twist the truth around and follow them like a cultist. This is the reason they promise things that'll never happen too, I guess. They know people will actually fall for it.
But anyway, I've rambled long enough and since I'm sure y'all are tired of hearing the "one and only Bushist" and her opinions, because lord knows only Democrats are right, I'll sign off.
~LD |
Sofie
Posts: 996/1210 |
The second debate was the first one I've ever seen, and it's very entertaining to watch. I wish politics were like this all the time 
They both talked out of their asses most of the time, which I assume is normal during and right before election time, but Kerry is the better speaker. |
Gavin
Posts: 239/799 |
Originally posted by Cymoro
I like the part where Bush slapped Kerry with his dick.
Kerry: "I will get terrorism down to an acceptable level."
Bush: "An acceptable level? I can get rid of it."
I'm still not siding with one or the other, I just found that funny.
then you might find this interesting, from the mouth of Bush himself:
Asked "Can we win?" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
this was a small issue earlier that got the democrats all up in arms. The thing that i find funny is that when Kerry says the same exact thing that Bush says, Bush turns around and acts like he's giving up.
Look, the fact is that you can't win the war on terror. Terror is an abstract concept, wikipedia says it best so i won't bother trying to paraphrase:
...the notion of declaring war on an abstract concept is troubling to some (in the same vein as the war on drugs, war on poverty, and the war on crime)
I certainly see nothing wrong with the truth as both candidates have said it at one point in their campaign, i can accept the fact that you cannot defeat terrorism, as Paul Begala a said "terrorism has been around since Cain slew Able" (or something like that, i can't quite recall) in reference to the Book of Genesis in biblical times. It gets annoying when a candidate can't make a simple truthfull statement without getting totally bashed. |
Cymoro
Posts: 1378/2216 |
I like the part where Bush slapped Kerry with his dick.
Kerry: "I will get terrorism down to an acceptable level."
Bush: "An acceptable level? I can get rid of it."
I'm still not siding with one or the other, I just found that funny. |
Seph2k4
Posts: 391/619 |
Originally posted by hhallahh
Originally posted by Seph2k4
Bush being re-elected is out of the question
Um, what? The race is close at the moment, but Kerry still needs to win the third debate and keep his momentum going in order to enjoy any kind of statistically significant lead.
Read my post again. I said SO FAR Bush being re-elected is out of the question as he is at a slight disadvantage in both the popular vote and the second debate (first was a blowout). |
Ran-chan
Posts: 4195/12781 |
Is that the game that have been posted somewhere at the board not so long ago?
"If it's anything like that last one I didn't watch and something that goes along with the '......uh......' statement...then yea...Bush is screwed."
I so laughed when I read that... Doesn |
Ailure
Posts: 5343/11162 |
Originally posted by Toxic
http://bushgame.com/g5.html
may be a game, but it's still facts
That's propoganda, still propoganda usually haves some truth. 
Don't like bush, and not becuse of war. I'm pissed off at him since he made "stem cell" reaserch illegal. One of my disabled friends would benefit from stem cell research...  |
hhallahh
Posts: 379/607 |
Originally posted by Seph2k4
Bush being re-elected is out of the question
Um, what? The race is close at the moment, but Kerry still needs to win the third debate and keep his momentum going in order to enjoy any kind of statistically significant lead. |
Seph2k4
Posts: 390/619 |
And I have a question for you, the one-and-only Bushist.
How do you back this up? First, Bush said that the sanctions are working, and then a few minutes later, he said that the sanctions are NOT working, and when Kerry pointed that out, Bush had an angry look on his face and backfired with yet ANOTHER argument that he already repeated one billion ga gillion fa fillion shabedelulemillion times in the previous election.
Bush DID do better this time around (to a degree) than he did in the first presidential debate, but he was still the clear-cut loser in this one. Maybe if he would learn to GET HIS DAMN FACTS STRAIGHT and, for once, back them up like Kerry does, and stop repeating himself so much in his speeches, that he'd have a shot at winning, but so far, Bush being re-elected is out of the question, and I hope it remains that way come Election Day.
KERRY FOR PRES Y'ALL... I'M OUTIE! PEACE! |
drjayphd
Posts: 687/1477 |
When Clinton was in office, pay was decreased, benefits were decreased, funding was decreased, our missile defense systems were shut down...the list goes on and on. Since Bush has come into office, our pay has gone up, benefits have improved, and the standard of living is slowly going up.
Is it really? All I've ever heard about benefits is that he was cutting them. And I don't personally know anyone who's still IN the military, so I can't say.
Not like I'm voting for the Assclown In Chief anyways, though. He got DEMOLISHED. AGAIN. And I only saw the last couple of questions. |
hhallahh
Posts: 377/607 |
Originally posted by Lunar Depths
No offense to the Democratic party, but the only political group who has ever improved things for the military has been the Republicans. When Clinton was in office, pay was decreased, benefits were decreased, funding was decreased, our missile defense systems were shut down...the list goes on and on. Since Bush has come into office, our pay has gone up, benefits have improved, and the standard of living is slowly going up. Yes, I do know this for a fact because my father is in the military. These reasons are why generally most military members are Republicans, because that party is the only party who does what you are suggesting.
To me, it sounded like Kerry was trying to be Super Man. Somehow, he is going to lower taxes for the middle class (by most likely raising the taxes to extreme amounts for the rich who are already paying the majority of our taxes), improve health care and provide it for everyone, improve our schools, improve our military, and still manage to pay off the defecit. I'm sorry, but that really does not sound realistic. The money for these programs has to come from somewhere, and that place is either taxes, Social Security, or our defecit increases. And just out of curiosity, was my family the only lower middle class family in the United States that got a tax break last year? Kerry sure made it sound that way, but I know we got a check. Just a question.
The challenger always promises everything. Blame him or the stupid American voter, but if Kerry were to say, "yea, I might have to raise taxes for our long-run interest" or something, it'd be over for him. The American voter wants everything and then some, and both canidates know this. Of course neither of them could realistically deliver on their promises... they just have to do so reasonably well. |
Toxic
Posts: 2019/2857 |
Originally posted by Lunar Depths
To me, it sounded like Kerry was trying to be Super Man. Somehow, he is going to lower taxes for the middle class (by most likely raising the taxes to extreme amounts for the rich who are already paying the majority of our taxes), improve health care and provide it for everyone, improve our schools, improve our military, and still manage to pay off the defecit. I'm sorry, but that really does not sound realistic. The money for these programs has to come from somewhere, and that place is either taxes, Social Security, or our defecit increases. And just out of curiosity, was my family the only lower middle class family in the United States that got a tax break last year? Kerry sure made it sound that way, but I know we got a check. Just a question.
http://bushgame.com/g5.html
may be a game, but it's still facts |
windwaker
Posts: 124/1797 |
If we didn't go to war with countries over get oil, we wouldn't have to give more money to the military . |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
|
