|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jul 27, 2004 16:16:13 GMT -5
She's also hardly a liberal (she's only even been a registered Democrat within the last 4 or 5 years--she remained a Republican for 5 years after marrying John Kerry) so I don't think Ken is reacting to her being a liberal at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 28, 2004 6:28:01 GMT -5
I don't think that'll suffice for Kerry, partly because Bush's support hasn't dipped below the 40% mark as far as I know (last poll I saw put him, at 43%), and partlyu because Kerry simply isn't that charismatic. I think he needs something positive that the electorate can latch onto. (Which is why I disagree with Drum's last post. This election is there for the winning, but only if the Democrat challenger can capture the imgination. Making this a referendum on Bush simply won't suffice, especially given the nature of the electoral college). JLLM, just to clarify, I wasn’t saying that the Kerry strategy should be to make the election a referendum on Bush, I was saying that that is the nature of this election. I don’t know if Kerry’s has it in him to electrify the electorate and the reality is that’s not why he’s the Democratic nominee. He’s the nominee because - bottom line - he was seen as the guy who could beat Bush. Right now I think he has a slightly better than 50% chance of doing that but yes, that could all change tomorrow. Caught what turned into a few hours of the C-SPAN feed of Democratic convention on CPAC last night, which is an odd thing for a Canuck to be doing on a July evening, I suppose, but interesting nonetheless for the political junkie in me. This Obama fellow’s a good speaker, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 28, 2004 6:44:28 GMT -5
Obama is a phenomenal speaker. It was refreshing to see a convention speech from EITHER side that was focused so much more on the values of being an American, and what we all believe in, than it was on "good guys/bad guys" crap.
But I will say, a great deal of the reaction to him, primarily from the pundits, really rubbed me the wrong way. I'd almost say it was downright racist. The man gives this phenomenal speech, with a lot of substance to it, and they're making comments about him being the "Tiger Woods of politics ... and not just the mixed race thing". The man is very well-spoken, has a great resume, and a lot to offer to this country. And they focus almost entirely on his race. It's pathetic!
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 28, 2004 10:37:17 GMT -5
i agree that i wasn't a fan of the racial comments. i liked the story of his background and how his family's lived the american dream, but some of those later comments were indeed questionable.
i liked ron reagan's speech the most yesterday. really informative stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 28, 2004 10:50:51 GMT -5
Ron Reagan's speech infuriated me so much that I had to just walk away from it. He was presenting all of this "imagine that you are sick ... it's just that easy to fix you" stuff as if it would be happening today if only Bush would pay for it. That's utter crap. It MAY help ... but they have absolutely no way of knowing if it does. That'swhy they're called EXPERIMENTS. I think it's pathetic to build that much false hope in people for something he does not know to be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 28, 2004 11:04:23 GMT -5
And while we're on the speeches, can we cover Teresa? What exactly was that?  SOMEDAY women will be allowed to express their opinions? Hello? That day arrived quite some time ago. Women won't be called opinionated? Why not??? What's so bad about being opinionated? And for the record, I call Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly opinionated too. When Kerry first started out in the primaries, I was really impressed with her. I thought she was this strong independent woman. My opinion of her has COMPLETELY turned around. After all, her life story is basically "These are the men I needed to make me whole". I don't call that strong. I don't see her believing that criticism equates to telling her she can't speak out as strength. I'm actually becoming kind of embarassed for her. |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 28, 2004 11:17:38 GMT -5
... bye.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 28, 2004 11:35:40 GMT -5
Ron Reagan's speech infuriated me so much that I had to just walk away from it. He was presenting all of this "imagine that you are sick ... it's just that easy to fix you" stuff as if it would be happening today if only Bush would pay for it. That's utter crap. It MAY help ... but they have absolutely no way of knowing if it does. That'swhy they're called EXPERIMENTS. I think it's pathetic to build that much false hope in people for something he does not know to be true. You must be referring to Ronald's son, speaking about the potential benefits of Stem Cell research. I missed out on that speech of his. I couldn't resist replying to your statement here, because I am apalled that someone could actually, in real life, maintain this attitude. Scientific research such as this is the basis upon which we make incredible breakthroughs in the medical field -- breakthroughs that may, in the future, provide immeasurable benefits for humankind. Just what is it with your bending over backwards until your spine snaps for Bush? What magical lake did he come walking over towards you with arms outstretched? For crying out loud he is just an ordinary man who happens to be president. A president who happens to be thoroughly criticized by a sufficient amount of people -- real people who matter just as much as you do -- as to his merits as a true and balanced leader. We have one foot in the gutter and one foot stepping out of it, while reaching for the stars. Bush wants to hogwallow us all back with both feet in the gutter, it appears to me. He is the Poster Child for "One Step Forward, Three Steps Back." This is the 21st Century, Chrisfan. We left the freaking Dark Ages centuries ago, mmmm'k? Has anyone in your family ever fallen prey to Althzeimer's Disease-? My grandmother did. To watch as her consciousness became inexorably trapped behind the soundproof, senseproof, shatterproof glass expression of her face, too gaze into her eyes and sense that she maintained her thoughts behind a frozen mask but somehow could not fire the proper neurons with which to communicate this to us -- was one of the most horrifying realizations I ever had to struggle with. Yet you have the audacity to flippantly state "Ron Reagan's infuriated you so much you had to walk away from it" - ? Yeah well you don't know fury like I do. And I will not walk away from the likes of you. |
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on Jul 28, 2004 11:37:14 GMT -5
She is lucky she STILL has that accent, otherwise a lot of what passes for not having a complete grasp of the English language would be seen for what it is……………….INSANITY!
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 28, 2004 12:38:52 GMT -5
I've looked at [Drum's link on Bush's environment record]. Why does it appear to be such a difficult concept for you to grasp that two intelligent people can look at hte same thing, and not draw the same conclusions from it? Well go on, amaze me. Are you really saying that Bush's record on the environment isn't poor/negligent? This should be good... |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 28, 2004 12:49:34 GMT -5
Thorn, I just wrote out a long response to you, and it was eaten by "too many connections". Given the lunacy of your tirade, it just doesn't make sense for me to take the time to re-type it. So I'll just summarize.
1. I never said I agree with Bush's stand on stem-cell research. In fact, while I'm not totaly settled on where I stand, I tend to lean more towards believing that Bush SHOULD remove many of the limits he's put on funding.
2. Your notion that a person can only care about the issue, or would think as you do on the issue, by knowing someone who's suffered from alzheimers is absurd. It's partially absurd because SCR is for so much more than just alzheimers. But it's even more absurd because it eludes to believing that the only way a person can care about an issue is if he or she is directly effected by it.
3. My obejction to Ron Reagan is NOT in his stand, but in the way he argues for it. Of course, if you'd seen the speech, you MAY understand what I was saying there.
JLLM ... we've been there and done that. Quite frankly, the issue bores me. And more importantly, the way you've been approaching things lately, with this "you are such an idiot for not thinking like me" approach, and utter disrespect for opposing viewpoints leaves me with absolutely no desire to discuss virtually any issue with you. So if you're looking for fun, go jack off or something, because I"m not interested in playing.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Jul 28, 2004 12:53:05 GMT -5
Thorn, I think it was the way that Reagan virtually PROMISED a solution to Alzheimer's et al....a thing which even with stem cell research going full speed is incredibly far from a certainty...
The building up of false hopes and the fact that to think Bush's 'refusal' to help in this endeavor is simply quashing ALL hope for them...to lay all that on Bush's doorstep(which IS what RR did)being just plain stupid. Hoodwinker-y of a very transparent sort.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 28, 2004 12:55:18 GMT -5
Thorn, I think it was the way that Reagan virtually PROMISED a solution to Alzheimer's et al....a thing which even with stem cell research going full speed is incredibly far from a certainty... The building up of false hopes and the fact that to think Bush's 'refusal' to help in this endeavor is simply quashing ALL hope for them...to lay all that on Bush's doorstep(which IS what RR did)being just plain stupid. Hoodwinker-y of a very transparent sort. PRECISELY. Not to mention that if Ronny had a firm grasp on the issue of Alzheimer's reserach, he'd know that right now, cord blood research is showing more promise for alzheimers than stem cell, and Bush has increased funding in this area. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 28, 2004 13:08:05 GMT -5
...I just don't get how you (not to mention RocDoc) can think stem cell research amounts to "false hope", that's all. And for "something he does not know to be true", no less. Coming from you, that's a real corker. You can dish it out but you can't take it huh. Do I have to point out that, neither do you know that what he claims isn't true? No one knows either way, Chrisfan (as it stands now). That's why it's called "research".
But I don't want to get into the whole debate about which demographic is better for us to butcher: babies or old folks. I'm for butchering babies, personally; while you're for sweeping our elders under the rug. Don't they teach you in that Church of yours to respect your elders-? Ah, but it is obvious we will never get each other to see eye to eye.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 28, 2004 13:15:59 GMT -5
...I just don't get how you (not to mention RocDoc) can think stem cell research amounts to "false hope", that's all. And for "something he does not know to be true", no less. Coming from you, that's a real corker. You can dish it out but you can't take it huh. Do I have to point out that, neither do you know that what he claims isn't true? No one knows either way, Chrisfan (as it stands now). That's why it's called "research". But I don't want to get into the whole debate about which demographic is better for us to butcher: babies or old folks. I'm for butchering babies, personally; while you're for sweeping our elders under the rug. Don't they teach you in that Church of yours to respect your elders-? Ah, but it is obvious we will never get each other to see eye to eye. Thorn, do you not realize that you have absolutely no grasp of what I've said here? First, and this is crucial, can you please show me where I have said that "stem cell research amounts to false hope"? Then, can you please speculate as to why I'd say I lean towards supporting something that I allegedly believe leads to false hope? Once you're done with that, can you please tell me where I've ever endorsed butchering EITHER babies or old folks? |
|
SOMEDAY women will be allowed to express their opinions? Hello? That day arrived quite some time ago. Women won't be called opinionated? Why not??? What's so bad about being opinionated? And for the record, I call Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly opinionated too.
