Man. He sounds ten years old sometimes.

<a href='http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1092308170254790.xml' target='_blank'>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/...08170254790.xml</a>

Schadenfreude Wrote:Man. He sounds ten years old sometimes.

I honestly don't understand you're criticism on this. You demean a man for saying he knows what he is doing. When you go to a job interview, do you tell you're prospective boss that you don't know what you are doing?

If you're going to criticize, please find something worthy of criticism. :rolleyes:

UTLAW Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Man. He sounds ten years old sometimes.

I honestly don't understand you're criticism on this. You demean a man for saying he knows what he is doing. When you go to a job interview, do you tell you're prospective boss that you don't know what you are doing?

If you're going to criticize, please find something worthy of criticism. :rolleyes:

Yep.

The reason I don't fit in with other Democrats I know (besides supporting the war and zealously wanting to kill fascist religious nuts who want to kill me), is that most Democrats start from the point of view of hating Bush personally and resenting his style, and then work back from there to get to real issues.

I think there's more than enough room to criticize Bush on the issues, and as Ben Affleck said during all of his tv interviews at the convention in Boston, we do ourselves a disservice as a party when we attack someone personally...because it takes the focus off the issues we claim to care so much about, and it trivializes a campaign that means so much. I think he's dead on with that, and it applies to both sides.

The election should be fought over the fact that Kerry understands and has a plan to solve the problem of soaring healthcare costs, that he understands the looming debt crisis and has a plan to help balance our budget without slowing growth, and that he has a plan to drive innovation and technological growth. It seems to me that attacking Bush personally does not serve any purpose and only feeds the perception that our side has nothing to substantive to talk about.

Quote:Separately, the Bush-Cheney campaign released a statement from the vice president in which he said Kerry "has had some difficulty explaining where he stands on the liberation of Iraq."

Responding to the criticism, Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said, "The sad fact is that Dick Cheney spends his time on the campaign trail launching vitriolic attacks because this White House has no record to run on."

In reality, Singer sounds like the 10-year old. Don't answer the criticism...just comeback with the political equivalent of "Yeah, well, they're poo-poo heads."

Why wouldn't he just say, "well, this is Senator Kerry's plan for Iraq..." and explain it? Why? Maybe because Kerry doesn't have a plan? Or is it something else?

OUGwave Wrote:

UTLAW Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Man. He sounds ten years old sometimes.

I honestly don't understand you're criticism on this. You demean a man for saying he knows what he is doing. When you go to a job interview, do you tell you're prospective boss that you don't know what you are doing?

If you're going to criticize, please find something worthy of criticism. :rolleyes:

Yep.

The reason I don't fit in with other Democrats I know (besides supporting the war and zealously wanting to kill fascist religious nuts who want to kill me), is that most Democrats start from the point of view of hating Bush personally and resenting his style, and then work back from there to get to real issues.

Quote: think there's more than enough room to criticize Bush on the issues, and as Ben Affleck said during all of his tv interviews at the convention in Boston, we do ourselves a disservice as a party when we attack someone personally...because it takes the focus off the issues we claim to care so much about, and it trivializes a campaign that means so much. I think he's dead on with that, and it applies to both sides.

Absolutely.

Quote:The election should be fought over the fact that Kerry understands and has a plan to solve the problem of soaring healthcare costs, that he understands the looming debt crisis and has a plan to help balance our budget without slowing growth, and that he has a plan to drive innovation and technological growth.

If Kerry really does have these ideas then yes he needs to start getting them out. I haven't seen any of this, even in the mainstream media.
In all fairness, I doubt I will agree w/ it, b/c I don't think the dem's ideas are realisitic in general but I'd like to hear them. Not rants against Bush. Because,

Quote:It seems to me that attacking Bush personally does not serve any purpose and only feeds the perception that our side has nothing to substantive to talk about.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Man. He sounds ten years old sometimes.

<a href='http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1092308170254790.xml' target='_blank'>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/...08170254790.xml</a>

You have a problem with him saying "I know what I'm doing"?

It sounds like the only one here who needs to grow up is you.

In a similar article posted at NBC News (may be the same article given both outlets' proclivity to lift from the AP wire), I found this little media gem:

[QUOTE]Bush and the pharmaceutical industry have opposed legalizing drug imports based on safety concerns. The Bush administration has a task force examining the issue.[QUOTE]

LOVE the way they phrase things in the absolute most negative connotation possible.

What the above quote means in non-liberal speak is that the Bush Administration is fine with drug imports (from Canada and others) as long as they meet FDA standards. Not a bad thing normally, but in an election year libs don't care if Seniors get tainted drugs or not.

Not that I'm a big fan of the FDA, mind you...

[quote="BearcatCarl"] In a similar article posted at NBC News (may be the same article given both outlets' proclivity to lift from the AP wire), I found this little media gem:

Quote:Bush and the pharmaceutical industry have opposed legalizing drug imports based on safety concerns. The Bush administration has a task force examining the issue.[QUOTE]

Yeah, but when your VP candidate is a personal injury lawyer, then imported drugs that don't meet FDA standards is a potential gold mine!

Now that is the kind of foresight and planning we need in Washington!

jjburtzel Wrote:

Quote:Separately, the Bush-Cheney campaign released a statement from the vice president in which he said Kerry "has had some difficulty explaining where he stands on the liberation of Iraq."

Responding to the criticism, Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said, "The sad fact is that Dick Cheney spends his time on the campaign trail launching vitriolic attacks because this White House has no record to run on."

In reality, Singer sounds like the 10-year old. Don't answer the criticism...just comeback with the political equivalent of "Yeah, well, they're poo-poo heads."

Why wouldn't he just say, "well, this is Senator Kerry's plan for Iraq..." and explain it? Why? Maybe because Kerry doesn't have a plan? Or is it something else?

:bluethumb:

BearcatCarl Wrote:In a similar article posted at NBC News (may be the same article given both outlets' proclivity to lift from the AP wire), I found this little media gem:

Quote:Bush and the pharmaceutical industry have opposed legalizing drug imports based on safety concerns. The Bush administration has a task force examining the issue.

LOVE the way they phrase things in the absolute most negative connotation possible.

What the above quote means in non-liberal speak is that the Bush Administration is fine with drug imports (from Canada and others) as long as they meet FDA standards. Not a bad thing normally, but in an election year libs don't care if Seniors get tainted drugs or not.

Not that I'm a big fan of the FDA, mind you...

BearcatCarl? Isn't all that spinning making you dizzy?

The Bush administration -- and the FDA in particular -- is doing everything it can to stand in the way of allowing Americans to buy drugs from Canada.

The FDA is carrying the big drug companies water, really. It has:

-- just rejected a plan from Vermont to begin importing drugs from Canada for its state employees.

<a href='http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=2158818' target='_blank'>http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=2158818</a>

-- Started going around the country trying to scare the hell out of consumers that Canadian drugs are somehow less safe.

<a href='http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=2160271&nav=LQlCPlPk' target='_blank'>http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=...71&nav=LQlCPlPk</a>

-- The FDA is even suggesting that if we let Americans buy drugs from Canada, terrorists will take advantage of that and try to kill us:

<a href='http://www.wral.com/health/3647824/detail.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wral.com/health/3647824/detail.html</a>

It's a bunch of crap.

Fact is, Canadian drugs are just as safe as American drugs. In many cases, Canada follows the lead of the FDA in deciding which drugs are safe and which aren't.

The only risks are in making sure the drugs are, in fact, sold by a legitmate Canadian pharmacy. In other words, if you are going to try to buy something over the Internet, be careful. It's common sense.

If Bush wanted to let Americans buy Canadian drugs, we'd already be allowed to do so. He's taking the side of the big drug companies.

The irony here is that Republicans are fond of labeling Democrats as "protectionist." The federal government's obstance is nothing but a protectionist racket for the big drug companies, which are bankrolling Bush for a second term.

In summation,

Bush knows what he is doing.

I am voting for him.

Schad isn't.

Who gives a flying ****?