|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 10:52:28 GMT -5
Post by chrisfan on Oct 7, 2004 10:52:28 GMT -5
Thankyou Chrisfan. I'm both grateful and extremely impressed with you. A bipartisan RS movement it is then!! Not only do I think that ExxonMobil deserves to be boycotted for their history of irresponsibility, but I think that the companies who take extra steps to be more responsible than required deserved to be rewarded by seeking out their products. |
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 10:54:30 GMT -5
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Oct 7, 2004 10:54:30 GMT -5
You're absolutely right as well: If consumers are made aware and effectively boycott irresponsible companies for a while, then there'd be very little need for government regulation in the corporate world. Consumer regulation is a less costly and more effective alternative, and more compatible with the notion of small government.
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 10:58:33 GMT -5
Post by RocDoc on Oct 7, 2004 10:58:33 GMT -5
Jesus:
The point is that the war in Iraq WAS a diversion from terror, which is actually what Kery said.
It was NOT a diversion when the Brit AND U.S. intelligence said there WERE WMDs in various stages within that country...when the President of Egypt and the King of Jordan told Tommy Franks that there wrere WMDs there....
THESE are the things which brought GWB(and Tony Blair)into that country in what MOST of us now in retrospect see was MORE than a bit of a willy-nilly fashion...
ONLY if you discount the veracity of THAT intel(accepted as actionable by those two superpowers) out-of-hand, can you be so stilted as to call it a 'diversion'...
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 11:10:37 GMT -5
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Oct 7, 2004 11:10:37 GMT -5
Eh? Pakistan has WMDs. Having WMDs does not signify that a country is a target for the war on terrorism.
False premise doc.
By the way, according to a recent poll, 62% of Republicans STILL think Saddam was behind 9/11. Wtf?
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 11:14:49 GMT -5
Post by pissin2 on Oct 7, 2004 11:14:49 GMT -5
But they never had WMDs!
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 11:18:04 GMT -5
Post by chrisfan on Oct 7, 2004 11:18:04 GMT -5
Eh? Pakistan has WMDs. Having WMDs does not signify that a country is a target for the war on terrorism. False premise doc. By the way, according to a recent poll, 62% of Republicans STILL think Saddam was behind 9/11. Wtf? Do you happen to know who did the poll? I'd be curious to know how the question was worded. |
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 11:22:57 GMT -5
Post by Galactus on Oct 7, 2004 11:22:57 GMT -5
With the report yesterday the best you've got intent to restart his long range program now. Personally I think that's pretty weak.
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 11:24:20 GMT -5
Post by chrisfan on Oct 7, 2004 11:24:20 GMT -5
It just dawned on me that factcheck.org missed one of the biggest whoppers that Edward told on Tuesday night. He said that millionaires sitting around their swimming pools are paying less taxes on their dividends than soldiers fighting in Iraq. But soldiers who are in combat don't pay taxes on their income for the months they are in combat. Millionaires (and non-millionaires who invest in the stock market) do pay tax on dividends ... it's just a smaller tax than it used to be. And factcheck didn't even mention it. Goofballs.
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 11:52:59 GMT -5
Post by Dr. Drum on Oct 7, 2004 11:52:59 GMT -5
They must have been so busy debunking all Cheney’s fibs that they missed it.
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 11:56:23 GMT -5
Post by chrisfan on Oct 7, 2004 11:56:23 GMT -5
They must have been so busy debunking all Cheney’s fibs that they missed it. Yeah, I"m sure that's it. Probably didn't want to lose anytime playing in traffic either. |
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 12:28:05 GMT -5
Post by pissin2 on Oct 7, 2004 12:28:05 GMT -5
I love how Cheney said he never met Edwards until the night of the debate. What a lying asshead.
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 12:50:56 GMT -5
Post by RocDoc on Oct 7, 2004 12:50:56 GMT -5
Eh? Pakistan has WMDs. Having WMDs does not signify that a country is a target for the war on terrorism.
False premise doc.
WAIT!
Ohmigod!
You mean Pakistan's got theirs trained on Israel too??
And have in fact taken potshots at them before?
Whoa...
How did I miss that??
~
Did I say there were ZERo other factors other than the the existence/the presence within a country?
'False premise' my ass.
I'm just a bit surprised, usually you do better...
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 12:56:08 GMT -5
Post by RocDoc on Oct 7, 2004 12:56:08 GMT -5
I'll assume the lack of right-wing response to my post on the health issue is a tacit admission that they don't want to defend the indefensible.
Ha.
- Healthcare premiums have soared by 59% since 2000.
Litigation, record high payouts, malpractice increases causing specialties’ offices to CLOSE causing the remaining offices to be overworked in some locales->mistakes->more payouts
- Those without health coverage increased by 3.2% in 2003 compared with the year before, to leave 45 million Americans without any health coverage.
- DUE to the increased premiums caused by(you guessed it!)litigation…
- Americans are banned from buying cheaper drugs from Canada
The ban is over.
- Bush is blocking crucial stem cell research to appease some wacko religious loonies on the right-wing fringe of his party, despite the fact it might lead to cheaper and more effective treatments.
Bush is not in fact ‘BLOCKING’ anything of the sort from moving forward regarding stem cell research. It continues but w/o federal support at this time.
FPs
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 12:57:32 GMT -5
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Oct 7, 2004 12:57:32 GMT -5
But Doc, I didn't have to do 'better' on this occasion; I merely responded to your stated argument  Chrisfan, no source for that poll. It was mentioned in either The Times or The Guardian today, since that's the two papers I read. If anyone else finds the source I'd be intrigued too. |
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 7, 2004 12:57:41 GMT -5
Post by stratman19 on Oct 7, 2004 12:57:41 GMT -5
You're absolutely right as well: If consumers are made aware and effectively boycott irresponsible companies for a while, then there'd be very little need for government regulation in the corporate world. Consumer regulation is a less costly and more effective alternative, and more compatible with the notion of small government. I'm on board with your boycott too, JLLM. Small government? Yes. Less regulation? Yes. Irresponsible companies? No. This small government conservative can go along with you on this one...plus I'm in an especially good mood. Buying a new gun always feels like Christmas! ;D |
|
