AnimationNation Forum

AnimationNation


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» AnimationNation   » SideTopics   » The Advantage of John Kerry (Page 1)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2  3  4 
 
Author Topic: The Advantage of John Kerry
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
One thing I must add to all of our political discussions is the occassional benefits of having the opposing party in office.

For instance: Bush signed in the single largest expansion of the education system since it came about. Let Kennedy have just about everything they wanted. And without Republican dissent, which would have been very loud disent if Clinton were the one pushing the same thing. True, liberal Democrats won't give Bush credit... they'll just say we need to do more (which they can always say, no matter what is done).

Similarly, Clinton signed most of the Contract with America into law, while demonizing the face of the Contract with America - Newt Gingrich.

Here in Virginia, our Democrat Governor pushed forth many economic plans that the previous Republican Governor only dreamed of. Why? The Republican would have been met with Republican support only. The Democrat Governor was able to remove Democrat dissent as well as gaining silent Republican support (they supported it, but politically, couldn't loudly sing his praises).

In short: I wonder if John Kerry were to do nothing different than Bush, if he'd gain Democrat support (or at least silence) while having Republican support as well (while noting differences so as not to give him full political advantage of praises). I don't think John Kerry will tear at the terrorists as hard as Bush. I don't think he can back off like many of his anti-war supporters are hoping, though.

I don't support Kerry. But I'm wondering how much you Kerry supporters will scream when we stay the course in Iraq regardless of who is elected. Will the Bush haters become Kerry haters? Or will they blame everything on Bush still (despite calls to "get over Clinton" a mere one term after his Presidency) - and despite tying Nixon to Vietnam despite two Democrat predicessors.

I recalling laughing my ass off when our current Democrat Governor pushed forth the previously "controversial" economic plans of the former Republican Governor without a word of former dissent being reuttered against him!

I guess partisanship can lead to blindness in both corrupt ways, as well as advantageous ways.

Without it, we'd never have gone to Kosovo so openly.

In short... I wonder if the President had a donkey on his pin instead of an elephant, if many of you would hold your tongues.

IP: Logged
Steve G
IE # 12
Member # 169

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve G   Author's Homepage   Email Steve G         Edit/Delete Post 
You really don't get it. It's not about politics. It's about incompetence and lies.
There were many Dems who came out against Clinton when he did something wrong and no one accused them of being un-American.
If Kerry makes as many serious mistakes as Bush I doubt he'd make it past a first term either.
BTW I think most assume that Kerry cannot just pull out of Iraq. He even has said so. But he wants to work on it.
Bush still can't admit that there's a problem.

--------------------
http://stevenegordon.blogspot.com
http://stevenegordon.com

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
Its not about politics huh?

Its entirely political. Why do you think Kerry is opposed to the war, but not entirely. He'll pull out... but not entirely.

He has to POLITICALLY appeal to a strong anti-war base and a pro-war center at the same time.

Its entirely political.

IP: Logged
MICROPHONE JONEZ
Member
Member # 1918

Icon 1 posted      Profile for MICROPHONE JONEZ           Edit/Delete Post 
My personal experience contradicts this theory. I was entirely neutral when this presidency started. No party affiliation whatsoever. Didn't care. Michael Moore didn't turn me into a liberal, Al Franken didn't, Clinton didn't-- George W. alone turned me into the liberal I am today. Guess he really is a 'uniter' in some ways.

But I do agree with you on one point, CC: blind partisanship will give a 'free pass' to everything their party does.. you've been a shining example of that here on these boards.

IP: Logged
painter
IE # 173
Member # 1623

Icon 1 posted      Profile for painter   Email painter         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Bush signed in the single largest expansion of the education system since it came about.
Quote/Claim:
"The Bush Administration is investing more money in elementary and secondary education than at any time in American history." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
"President Bush proposed a budget that was $9.7 billion below the amount needed to fund his own No Child Left Behind Bill. The budget eliminates 45 education programs, and slashes another 18 programs by $1.4 billion. Specifically, he proposes to cut $400 million (40%) out of after-school programs, resulting in 485,000 children being thrown off these programs. He proposes to freeze teacher training grants, meaning a loss of opportunity for 30,000 teachers. And, during a recession, he has proposed a $307 million cut for vocational/technical education grants, and a freeze on Pell Grants." - House Appropriations Committee Report, 10/3/03


Quote/Claim:
"Some say the No Child Left Behind Act doesn't provide enough money to meet our goals... People say, well, it's an unfunded mandate to put accountability systems in place. No, the accountability systems are largely funded by the federal government." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
"This year alone, the Bush administration shortchanges American schools $9.4 billion under No Child Left Behind." - NY Times, 3/14/04


Quote/Claim:
"In the budget I submit, the largest increase of any department will be for the Department of Education." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
Calculated by dollars, the biggest proposed budget increase ($14.2 billion) in Bush's FY2002 budget went to the Defense Department.


Quote/Claim:
"I'm going to vigorously defend No Child Left Behind because I know in my heart of hearts it's the absolute right role for the federal government -- to provide money, but insist upon results…And [if schools do not pass], there will be special help to make sure they do." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
In 2005 alone, the Administration has requested $9.4 billion less for its own No Child Left Behind bill than the bill demands. The Title I program – the main program targeted to disadvantaged children - is underfunded by $7.2 billion, leaving "nearly five million disadvantaged children without extra academic help and services." In all, the Administration has underfunded the bill by a total of $27 billion since it was signed. - House Education & Workforce Committee, 2/11/04


Quote/Claim:
"The reading program money is up by 4 times." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
The Bush budget proposed funding the new program, Literacy Through School Libraries, in “No Child Left Behind” at only 5% of the level promised ($12.5 million). Under the Bush request, funding would be sufficient to buy an average of five new library books for only about 124,000 children - 2.4 million fewer children than under the [original] “No Child Left Behind.” - House Democrats Web site


Quote/Claim:
"And you can't have a system that is -- meets objectives if you're hamstrung by federal rules and regulations." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
"The National Conference of State Legislatures has identified challenges to No Child Left Behind from lawmakers in 23 states. Most of the disputing states seek more flexibility in meeting the law's mandates, but some states are even considering rejecting federal funds rather than being subject to the law." - National Journal, 3/19/04

In a backlash to President Bush's signature education program, on 1/24/04 Virginia's Republican-controlled House of Delegates approved a resolution calling on Congress to exempt the state from the requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act." According to the resolution, the act "represents the most sweeping intrusions into state and local control of education in the history of the United States" and will cost "millions of dollars that Virginia does not have." - Miami Herald, 1/25/04


Quote/Claim:
"Title I money [for disadvantaged students] is up." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
The President proposed slashing 82% of the proposed growth of Title I. Instead of a $5.65 billion increase in Title I called for in “No Child Left Behind” the President's budget provided an increase of only $1 billion - with most of that $1 billion “increase” coming through terminations of other programs directed at the same needy schools.


Quote/Claim:
"Parents, teachers, and principals are seeing a positive difference in America's schools. The No Child Left Behind Act is raising standards for students and putting the focus on student achievement." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
"The sweeping federal law left cash-strapped states battered and confused in 2003. More nationwide provisions will take effect in 2004, along with the threat of losing millions of dollars for states that don’t pass muster." - Stateline, 12/8/03


Quote/Claim:
"Teacher training money is up. We've increased the teacher training and recruitment budget significantly." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
In his most recent budget, Bush proposed to freeze Teacher Quality State Grants - cutting off training opportunities for about 30,000 teachers, and leaving 92,000 less teachers trained than called for in his own No Child Left Behind bill. - House Appropriations Committee Report, 2004


Quote/Claim:
“The federal government will not micromanage how schools are run. We believe strongly—we believe strongly the best path to education reform is to trust the local people.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
The Republican controlled Virginia House of Delegates testified to the way the law has struck states. They drafted a resolution noting that the No Child Left Behind Bill "represents the most sweeping intrusions into state and local control of education in the history of the United States." The House passed a resolution calling on Congress to exempt states like Virginia from the program's requirements in a 98-1 vote. - Washington Post, 1/23/04


Quote/Claim:
"We have [been] increasing Pell grants..." [White House Web site]

Fact:
The Administration has frozen the maximum Pell Grant available to students at $4,050, despite the President's campaign pledge in 2000 to increase the award to $5,100. The program freeze comes at the same time "state colleges and universities in every region of the country are preparing to impose this fall their steepest tuition and fee increases in a decade." Because of the Administration's budget, "most students won't get any more help than they receive now" – at the same time the White House has proposed a rule change that would cut off 84,000 students from receiving college aid. - Wall Street Journal, 2/3/04; Washington Post, 7/22/03; Cincinnati Enquirer, 10/10/03


Quote/Claim:
"Schools need mentors. We all need to be out encouraging people to volunteer." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
Bush's 2004 budget proposed to eliminate all $48 million for Youth Opportunities Grants - the Department of Labor's major program to "provide youth seeking assistance in achieving academic and employment success." - House Appopriations Committee Report, 2004


Quote/Claim:
"More students are receiving federal Pell grants than when President Bush took office." [Source: DOE Web site]

Fact:
Financial aid is primarily based on family income. Median household income, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, has fallen for the last two years for which data is available (2001 and 2002). - U.S. Census Bureau

--------------------
it's here I sit and rust amid this ruin and rancor like tire irons
toothy grills and car parts before me...

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
The quote and fact parellels are Michael Moore like at best. I don't even feel like going into the selective and twisted logic at the present moment.

as for "But I do agree with you on one point, CC: blind partisanship will give a 'free pass' to everything their party does.. you've been a shining example of that here on these boards. "

You're including the times I've noted disagreements with Bush as well, I'm sure? No? Odd? You have to omit that in order to pigeon hole me? No F-in' way? Never would have guessed. My above post gave BOTH sides credit, and criticized BOTH sides. If you can't see that, you're the partisan one - not me.

As for your "personal" response to Bush - do you know how many people I know that were non-politcal before Clinton pushed them Republican? That issue had nothing to do with my post though. Clinton did advance some conservative agendas, and Bush has advanced some liberal ones. That was the point of my post.

The only reason I come to Bush's defense moreso than attacking him on this board is because this board is full of Bush haters.... so I respond to the partisan attacks on him.

Believe me, if this were a fair board, and especially a Bush-love only board, I'd be caught criticizing him a lot more often. This board doesn't need any more Bush crit, though. And some of the truly partisan and down right warped and twisted things people will say about him DO necessitate a response.

Don't blame me for defending someone who'se being attacked.

IP: Logged
Shawn Toshikian
Member
Member # 796

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shawn Toshikian   Email Shawn Toshikian         Edit/Delete Post 
Coffee Cat,

My father is a Republican and has always voted as such, both at the state and federal level.

And I was BEYOND SHOCKED when he told me that he is NOT going to vote for George W. Bush this time around. True, it is a vote against more then a vote for.

What turned him against the Republican Party, was not the war, was not the economy, was not any of those things that people are talking about on a national scale. It was one thing that effected him on a personal level. Effected him in his daily life. It was because this last year the Republican's in Congress passed laws and were signed into law that allow Corporations to not honor previous agreements concerning health care for retirees. He is retired and he poured over twenty thousand dollars into a health care plan that should have been honor for the rest of his life. But the new law allows at the whim of a Corporation to suspend that agreement.

So this is why he is not voting for George Bush and voting for Kerry. Not in support of Kerry but as a stance against the actions of the Rebplican Party.

I have looked over all your posts. And would like to ask you a questions, if you don't mind.

1. What would the Republicans have to do, or what evidence would you have to be presented with that would make you vote differently.

One of my best friends and most of my family are what I call, "of the Republican Faith"; which means that their support in the Republican party is based in faith, "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

And just for the record, I don't vote along party lines, I vote along my belief in what or who I see would be best for the country at the time. Sometimes that is a conservative and sometimes that is a liberal. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats. And don't laugh:), but I have also voted for the Green Party and for Libertarians, as well. Not one party has the ability or wide range of views and beliefs that can possibly encompass the complex and often radically changing times we live in.

IP: Logged
SoleilSmile
IE # 120
Member # 1483

Icon 9 posted      Profile for SoleilSmile   Author's Homepage   Email SoleilSmile         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Not one party has the ability or wide range of views and beliefs that can possibly encompass the complex and often radically changing times we live in.
Here! Here!

ALthough I did not support the war in Iraq, I do believe we need to stay and rebuild and clean up after ourselves. I've heard that the troops have given stuffed animals to Iraqi children and other gestures of goodwill, but these efforts will not appease the insurgients and those who feel trapped by the occupation.
I just wish that we didn't alienate the U.N. so reconstruction can be a worldwide effort of goodwill. Right now despite all of the coalition's efforts, the insurgients just see the U.S. and Britian as a greedy force in search of oil. Rebuilding Iraq would be so much easier if only we had U.N support for invading, fro we would have all the world there to help instead of just teh U.S. and Britain. Now we'll be hated in the Middle East for yet another 1,000 years.
Pity.
Does anyone know of ways to send food and other goodies to Iraq? Of all the pleas for help ( more troops) I rarely see anything encouraging individual Live-Aid type relief efforts made by the Amercian people posted on CNN or NPR.

--------------------
HipChick Comics and Animatress Blog

www.hipchickcomics.com
http://www.animatress.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged
toonedbob
IE # 45
Member # 422

Icon 14 posted      Profile for toonedbob   Email toonedbob         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks Coffee - you've helped point out the problem with having the TWO party system. [thumbsup]
IP: Logged
Filboid Sudge
Member
Member # 2745

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Filboid Sudge           Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.pla.blogspot.com/

If you scroll down this page and read this man's story of his experiences with his son's autism (and they're so beautifully written I suggest you read them all chronologically), you may see why the Bush administration's chumminess with Big Pharma and their stance against trial lawyers are so dangerous to our Republic. Even if the war against Iraq had never happened, the neo-con's corruption and apathy toward ordinary people would be more than enough reason for me to vote against them.

Th' Missus

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
"What would the Republicans have to do, or what evidence would you have to be presented with that would make you vote differently."

This question was directly asked of me - and I think its a very very good question.

In answering the question, all I can really do is note this: why are more of you liberals not voting for Nader? Why are the Democrats so intent on keeping him out?

Easy. They say it is he who elected Bush, right? Just like it was Perot scoring double digits that allowed Clinton to get elected with just 43% of the vote.

The Republicans are MUCH more like my beliefs than the Democrats. Despite the Republicans becoming every bit as big government, and big spending as the Democrats... they're more like me than the Democrats are. And, those are the only two viable parties out there.

A vote for anyone else would just give the "opposing" party more edge. When voting, you have to realize that you have to actually win and election!!! I'll vote, therefore, for the one most like me, that CAN WIN. Thats the Republican party.

Toonedbob was not joking when he quipped about the two party system. I'm a loyal Republican for a reason. Its the only viable party for conservatives - even when they compromise, sell out, co-opt, adopt the other parties agendas, or triangulate.

I'm not sure if that answers the question or not. I like the Republican Pary, so I'm still voting FOR it rather than against the Democrats... but its no where near an ideal party.

The Republican Party has already done enough to get me to vote for someone else: but the two party system doesn't provide that someone else.

Unless you were asking me what would get me to vote for Kerry?

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
"you may see why the Bush administration's chumminess with Big Pharma and their stance against trial lawyers are so dangerous to our Republic. Even if the war against Iraq had never happened, the neo-con's corruption and apathy toward ordinary people would be more than enough reason for me to vote against them."

I think this is way to simplistic.

You cannot provide good pharm. advancements without allowing good pharm. business and profit. Do you want medical advancements? How is suing them poor going to make medicine better? It makes going into the business less attractive to the people who actually make these advancements. You cannot crush a business into betterment.

So many of you are against ANIMATION outsourcing and cheapqals in entertainment - but you seem to want it in medicine. Do you want Korean animated medicine to be our future?

The biggest advancements and inventions and discoveries are made by allowing people to profit from their research and success. There must be a balance in charity, business, government, and law (suing).

It is a fact that many doctors are going out of business due to the rising law-suit-insurance - due directly to the numerous law-suits that get awarded or settled with huge sums of money. You CANNOT overlook the disasterous effect this will have on our medical and pharm. system.

Its not black and white on either side. A damaged pharm. company is not going to better serve the needy. It is not apathy towards people. The only doctor in Senate is a Republican who very much cares for people.

IP: Logged
Nedlaw
Member
Member # 3052

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nedlaw   Email Nedlaw         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I like the Republican Pary, so I'm still voting FOR it rather than against the Democrats...

The Republican Party has already done enough to get me to vote for someone else

So which one of these statements is true??? This sounds like George W Bush talking about John Kerry.
IP: Logged
Twedzel
IE # 102
Member # 122

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Twedzel   Email Twedzel         Edit/Delete Post 
The drug industry and the FDA in particular are in drastic need of reform. Most 'profits' these days arn't going into research and development. Most of the 'new' drugs are old ones repackaged for new medical conditions and often with just different quantities of their active ingredients. This enables them to extend their patent for anouther 5 years befor having to release it to the general public. It is estimated that 1 in 20 hospital deaths are attributed to drug related interactions, however hospitals are not required to report this information and the FDA does not track it, (so the likelyhood is that this statistic is much higher). 1 in 5 drugs Okayed by the FDA gets taken off the market or is relabelled with extreme warnings for side effects and its scope is limited. Most of the money being spent by pharmaceuticals now a days is in advertising to the public and to doctors into recommending the use of their drug over that of a competitor. They are a corperation like any other. Of course they will use any defense to protect their bottem line. Their ace card has allways been, we need that money for R&D. Well, simply isn't all that truthful.
IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
Nedlaw, read the whole post.

I like many things about the Republican Party - but not EVERYTHING about the Republican Party.

The Republican Party can frustrate me to no end - but that doesn't mean I don't support the Republican Party - not the Democrat Party.

Or you can continue take standments out of context, cite semantics, and illustrate yourself as the truly blind partisan. I assume you are - since you're saying you must not take issue with your party in order to still support it.

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
"Most 'profits' these days arn't going into research and development."

The media outlets did alot of looking into this when Al Gore claimed all the money was spent on marketing and not R&D. The journalists made Al Gore look foolish for the assessment. Don't play the fool yourself. The numbers do not back up your claim. R&D is huge with these companies.

IP: Logged
toonedbob
IE # 45
Member # 422

Icon 1 posted      Profile for toonedbob   Email toonedbob         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
A vote for anyone else would just give the "opposing" party more edge. When voting, you have to realize that you have to actually win and election!!! I'll vote, therefore, for the one most like me, that CAN WIN. Thats the Republican party.

Pretty insulting sentiments to those who vote their concious as opposed to compromising their philosophy because neither of the two parties represent their ideals.

I won't vote for either Kerry or Bush. So my vote for another candidate isn't costing either party anything, but I am making a statement as are others, that change is needed and at least we are particpating, unlike the majority of Americans.

Your attitude and others on the other side that definately want Nader off the ballots is one of the major reasons why so many folks are disenchanted with the electtions.

IP: Logged
Vincent
Member
Member # 2369

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vincent   Email Vincent         Edit/Delete Post 
Isn't most of the R&D federally funded?
IP: Logged
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OFFBEAT   Author's Homepage   Email OFFBEAT         Edit/Delete Post 
The biggest advantage John Kerry has right now, and what will win him the election is:

THAT HE IS NOT GEORGE BUSH!
nuff said.

BTW.. i'd like to take this opportunity to compliment the Bush administration's decision to deal with Iraq over North Korea. As this article from today well illustrates that decision...

http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040928%2F0515512476.htm&sc=1104&flok=NW_5-L2&floc=NW_1-T

Too bad for us, and the rest of the world, that Korea didn't have large amounts of oil resources.

IP: Logged
Twedzel
IE # 102
Member # 122

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Twedzel   Email Twedzel         Edit/Delete Post 
"The media outlets did alot of looking into this when Al Gore claimed all the money was spent on marketing and not R&D. The journalists made Al Gore look foolish for the assessment. Don't play the fool yourself. The numbers do not back up your claim. R&D is huge with these companies."

Just heard a radio expose on the matter with several knowledgable guests illustrating their points. Very persuasive arguments definantly not worth dismissing out of hand. Also have several friends (including my girlfriend) in the medical community who know better. Promoting drugs is a huge business.

If I remember correctly Al Gore was also seen as 'foolish' for his stand on Global Warming was he not?

IP: Logged
Nedlaw
Member
Member # 3052

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nedlaw   Email Nedlaw         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Or you can continue take standments out of context, cite semantics, and illustrate yourself as the truly blind partisan.
In all honesty, your statements are quite confusing these days. You accuse others of being blindly partisan, even though you yourself tell us how loyal you are to the republican party even when they sell out. If my party sold out, I would no longer support them. And you completely dodged the question of what the republicans would have to do to get you to vote another way - which we can only interpret to mean that there is nothing the republicans could possibly do to get you to vote the other way. You would vote for them regardless, correct? I personally would not do that. I would vote for a respectable republican before I vote for a foolhearted democrat - maybe that's why I'm a registered independent.

Now, in all seriousness, who is the blindly partisan person here? I'll give you a hint - the initials are CC. [Wink]

IP: Logged
Filboid Sudge
Member
Member # 2745

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Filboid Sudge           Edit/Delete Post 
"you may see why the Bush administration's chumminess with Big Pharma and their stance against trial lawyers are so dangerous to our Republic. Even if the war against Iraq had never happened, the neo-con's corruption and apathy toward ordinary people would be more than enough reason for me to vote against them."

"I think this is way to simplistic."

Okay, when I posted the link http://www.pla.blogspot.com/ I suppose I should've assumed no one would actually read it. It is long and heartbreaking, after all. But the controversy over Ely Lilly's use of Thimerosal, a preservative used in the hepatitis B vaccination given to 30 million infants over the past 15 years contained amounts of mercury far exceeding the allowable dosage for adults. There's been a lot of research done, especially in CA, to find a possible link between autism and the use of Thimerosal. Much of that research has been inconclusive, but that didn't stop Ely Lily from trying to insert a caveat into the Homeland Security Bill that might protect them from any Thalyidimide-type lawsuits in the future:

"When the Homeland Security Bill was presented, the soon to be retired Dick Armey inserted a special provision into the bill. As the Times reported:
In one last-minute addition, Representative Dick Armey, Republican of Texas, inserted a provision that was apparently intended to protect Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical giant, from lawsuits over thimerosal, a mercury-based vaccine preservative that some parents contend has caused autism in their children."


You might wonder what Eli Lilly's concerns over being sued have to do with homeland security: So do I.

Then this, in Novevember 2002:

Attorneys for the Bush Administration asked a federal court on Monday to order that documents on hundreds of cases of autism allegedly caused by childhood vaccines be kept from the public.

Department of Justice lawyers asked a special master in the US Court of Federal Claims to seal the documents, arguing that allowing their automatic disclosure would take away the right of federal agencies to decide when and how the material should be released….

Administration lawyers told Special Master George Hastings that they requested the seal in order to preserve the legal right of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to decide when vaccine evidence can be released to the public.

Justice Department attorney Vincent Matanoski argued that to let plaintiffs use the vaccine court evidence in a later civil suit would confer an advantage on plaintiffs who chose to forgo federal compensation.


See, Coffee, this is what I mean by "Chumminess". Not simplistic at all. Real people, many in our own beloved state of CA, are affected by autism: not just parents, but caregivers and the state, local, and federal agencies that may pay out over 1 M pr autistic child over a lifetime. It would be easier to look for a cure, or a cause, but if Eli Lilly can seal all its research with the Bush Administration's blessings we're all put at a disadvantage.

This is only one very specific example: I suspect there's a lot more. There's Bush's Mental Health Initiative that favors pharma over treatment (especially Eli Lilly's).

Th'Missus

IP: Logged
-FP-
IE # 13
Member # 914

Icon 2 posted      Profile for -FP-   Author's Homepage   Email -FP-         Edit/Delete Post 
Posted before, but worth a look:
On the way: a mandatory ‘Prozac nation’

IP: Logged
Twedzel
IE # 102
Member # 122

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Twedzel   Email Twedzel         Edit/Delete Post 
So that article beyond being scary beyond all belief, also makes for bigger government rather than smaller government. Manditory mental health screening for a population that can't afford the drugs that don't really work anyways to treat it??? No alternatives, no freedoms, **** even dental health isn't mandatory. I always thought this one was an exageration, but then I did a little internet search and found it was verified by Fox themselves. That is one scary administration.
IP: Logged
Filboid Sudge
Member
Member # 2745

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Filboid Sudge           Edit/Delete Post 
Hey Frank--

Here's a couple more that go further in depth:

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=830

http://psychrights.org/Articles/LevineLillyandBush.htm

Not a laughing matter, this. And calling Bush's mental health 'plan' the "New Freedom Initiative" is so far beyond Orwellian double-speak it's almost goofy. It's bad enough that the current administration is cutting back on mental health facilities (most profoundly for the VA- Hey, how's that for supporting our troops?) but requiring public school teachers and their K-8 students to be the first to be screened seems almost vindictive to me. Clearly public education is something these guys want dead and quick. School voucher, anyone?

Feh.

Th'Missus

IP: Logged
Shawn Toshikian
Member
Member # 796

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shawn Toshikian   Email Shawn Toshikian         Edit/Delete Post 
Did you just feel that? Wait, there it is again. And again...you must have felt that. Its like someone keeps kick me in the head. OH..., now I know what it is...its our government stripping away our personal freedoms.
IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
Stripping away your personal freedom? Since most of this refers to vast public programs - i don't see what you're really referring to.

Don't have time right now to get into some of the meatier things - so i'll just address some of the things directly pointed at me.

My blind partisanship? Dodging the question? I answered it outright. The Republican Party can't get me to vote against it because the only thing against it is MORE liberal. That doesn't mean I blindly support the republicans on every issue just because they're republicans.

Lets illustrate it this way:

Lets say you HAVE to eat a cookie. You hate chocolate, but you love peanut butter. The only option though is peanut butter cookies with chocolate chips... or a chocolate chocolate chip fudge bar. If you HAVE to eat a cookie, you're going to pick the peanut butter cookies... the added chocolate chips might not be to your liking - and would have you opting for just plain old peanut butter cookies if any were available - but the small chocolate chips are still much more tolerable than the chocolate chocolate chip fudge bar.

You're question is a loaded one. You want to see me as a partisan because i won't vote democrat. but its like the chocolate chocolate fudge bar in cookie example above. The fact that the Republican Party goes liberal somtimes, and therefore i disagree with it, doesn't mean, in order to be non-partisan I'm going to just to the Democrats who are MORE liberal. That would make NO sense. I'm a conservative. So of COURSE the Republican part makes most sense for me, even when I strongly disagree with them. That's not partisanship - that's the reality of the political landscape you goofball.

As for the registered independent. Do you know how many people do that and still vote lock step with one part over another. It's like registering independent makes you feel superior or smarter or more open minded. Boring. Heard it before. Nice trick. Overused trick. Old trick. Find a new way to pat yourself on your brain. Oh wise one, oh open minded one, oh truely enlighted one, oh registered independent one. I got one up on you though. In VA we don't register by party - so I'm not a registered anything. I'm totally unlabeled. Totally untainted by party registration. Nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo. Yawn. Labeling yourself an independent is just that - yawn worthy. Oh, and totally f-ing meaningless.

Get a life. Because I won't vote Democrat I'm a partisan Republican? No. Because I'm a conservative I'll never vote Democrat. AHHHHH - you never asked how the DEMOCRATS COULD GET MY VOTE, did you? No. That would take away the loaded question part meant to make me look partisan you charlatan. i'm not liberal. why would i vote democrat? the only way i'll vote democrat when they're more conservative than republicans. Is that the case? no. so i'm not partisan. i'm voting for the closest party to my beliefs. thats not partisanship- that's called logical.

loaded question, that again, relied on ignoring my many complaints about Bush and other Republicans. you see me as a partisan becaue you plain want to. more blind power to you.

As for research and development. What i meant when i said they made al gore look foolish was when he claimed your claim: that they spend all their money on marketing. The news media pulled numbers and it was r&d heavy way beyond their marketing expendetures. The numbers made al gores claim that they spent more on marketing than on r&d look foolish. That doesn't mean marketing isn't pushed. that doesn't mean marketing isn't significant. but we went over this with al gore already. this happened in one of the debates where he got caught for many false statements, exaggerations, or invented statistics. the numbers did NOT back up his claim.

that doesn't mean that the medical world is perfect. and you're twisting my words in your application of "simplistic." in my post I talked about a balance. In yours, you blame bush and republicans and the conservative, pro business end of it alone. there must be a balance.

toonedbob - that wasn't meant to be an insult to those who vote their "conscience." My conscience leads me to vote Republican because they're closer to me than the Democrat party. If you'd never vote for either - than my messege wasn't speaking to you. That wasn't the issue and/or voter I was referring to. Don't be so sensitive. If you're a party builder, or whatever else - that's great. Wasn't what I was speaking to at all.

IP: Logged
painter
IE # 173
Member # 1623

Icon 1 posted      Profile for painter   Email painter         Edit/Delete Post 
Is it just me or are the mental contortions that CC does to justify his positions warping his mind unrecognizably?

Equating voting with eating cookies? [Confused]

--------------------
it's here I sit and rust amid this ruin and rancor like tire irons
toothy grills and car parts before me...

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
can't understand metaphors? whose mind is warped?
IP: Logged
Twedzel
IE # 102
Member # 122

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Twedzel   Email Twedzel         Edit/Delete Post 
"In yours, you blame bush and republicans and the conservative, pro business end of it alone. there must be a balance."

Could you please point out exactly where I blame Bush? Talk about twisting.

IP: Logged
Filboid Sudge
Member
Member # 2745

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Filboid Sudge           Edit/Delete Post 
Uh, okay CC, I'll bite. How CAN the Democrats get your vote?
(This oughta be interesting...)

Th'Missus

IP: Logged
Shawn Toshikian
Member
Member # 796

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shawn Toshikian   Email Shawn Toshikian         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Stripping away your personal freedom? Since most of this refers to vast public programs - i don't see what you're really referring to.
I am referring to a system that is being put in place that is going to start mandatory testing for "mental health". CC, you do not have a problem with this? Would you would allow yourself to be tested on your mental health? Would you support a government that made mandatory "mental healthy" testing and submit to what they viewed as healthy. How far would you allow them to take it?

I was a triple major in college. One of them being psychology...one of the things we studied is that there are some fundamental problem in mental diagnosis. One, of them being...when you look for a problem you will find it...whether one exists or not. Countless studies showed that the tester and test had a primary impact of the results of the outcome. Empirical data, can be manufactured just by changing the context of a test. What we learned is that a person's mental health, can not be simplly tested/labeled and fixed by a drug. An accurate diagnosis takes time...and I really don't see the government spending 6 months of weekly visits (on everyone) to get the proper perspective they would need to give an accuarte evaluation. They want a test that can be done in hour and banded by a pill.

IP: Logged
Shawn Toshikian
Member
Member # 796

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shawn Toshikian   Email Shawn Toshikian         Edit/Delete Post 
This is from a Republican in Texas who is trying to fight it and protect our rights.

A presidential initiative called The “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health” has issued a report recommending forced mental health screening for every child in America, including preschool children. The goal is to promote the patently false idea that we have a nation of children with undiagnosed mental disorders crying out for treatment.

One obvious beneficiary of the proposal is the pharmaceutical industry, which is eager to sell the psychotropic drugs that undoubtedly will be prescribed to millions of American schoolchildren under the new screening program. Of course a tiny minority of children suffer from legitimate mental illnesses, but the widespread use of Ritalin and other drugs on youngsters who simply exhibit typical rambunctious, fidgety, and impatient behavior is nothing short of criminal. It may be easier to teach and parent drugged kids, but convenience is no justification for endangering them. Children’s brains are still developing, and the truth is we have no idea what the long-term side effects of psychiatric drugs may be. Medical science has not even exhaustively identified every possible brain chemical, even as we alter those chemicals with drugs.

Dr. Karen Effrem, a physician who strongly opposes mandatory mental health screening, warns us that “America’s children should not be medicated by expensive, ineffective, and dangerous medications based on vague and dubious diagnoses.” She points out that psychiatric diagnoses are inherently subjective, as authors of the diagnostic manuals admit. She also is concerned that mental health screening could be used to label children whose attitudes, religious beliefs, and political views conflict with the secular orthodoxy that dominates our schools.

The greater issue, however, is not whether youth mental health screening is appropriate. The real issue is whether the state owns your kids. When the government orders “universal” mental health screening in schools, it really means “mandatory.” Parents, children, and their private doctors should decide whether a child has mental health problems, not government bureaucrats. That this even needs to be stated is a sign of just how obedient our society has become toward government. What kind of free people would turn their children’s most intimate health matters over to government strangers? How in the world have we allowed government to become so powerful and arrogant that it assumes it can force children to accept psychiatric treatment whether parents object or not?

Parents must do everything possible to retain responsibility and control over their children’s well-being. There is no end to the bureaucratic appetite to rule every aspect of our lives, including how we raise our children. Forced mental health screening is just the latest of many state usurpations of parental authority: compulsory education laws, politically-correct school curricula, mandatory vaccines, and interference with discipline through phony “social services” agencies all represent assaults on families. The political right has now joined the political left in seeking the de facto nationalization of children, and only informed resistance by parents can stop it. The federal government is slowly but surely destroying real families, but it is hardly a benevolent surrogate parent.

September 14, 2004

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

IP: Logged
Nedlaw
Member
Member # 3052

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nedlaw   Email Nedlaw         Edit/Delete Post 
So you're saying that you are unquestionably non-partisan even though you will only vote for the Republican party, regardless of what they do, right? And there is nothing the Republicans could do to get you to vote the other way, correct? It really sounds like W's logic has been rubbing off on you, CC. Reminds me of this article.

[Wink]

IP: Logged
painter
IE # 173
Member # 1623

Icon 1 posted      Profile for painter   Email painter         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.
More devastating rhetoric from the conservatives...

--------------------
it's here I sit and rust amid this ruin and rancor like tire irons
toothy grills and car parts before me...

IP: Logged
Nooginstein
Member
Member # 2167

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nooginstein   Email Nooginstein         Edit/Delete Post 
Surely you guys aren't that dense -- the caffeinated one has clearly stated there's plenty about the Republican party he doesn't like, but that the Democrats are even worse philosophically. How hard is that to understand? Coffee doesn't like big government -- and though the Republicans have unfortunately passed some big gov programs, the Dems are even worse: they want government health care, they want more taxes, they want more regulations. So, philosophically, however bad the Republicans are, the Democrats are worse. That's what he's saying -- geez.

You want to know what it would take for Coffee to vote Democrat? For the Democrats to call for slashing tax rates, private health care, private social security, and to stop undercutting the American efforts at democratizing Iraq. I'm not going to hold my breath.

As far as the mandatory mental health thing - it ain't got a prayer of passing, and if it did, it would be struck down by the courts.

IP: Logged
painter
IE # 173
Member # 1623

Icon 1 posted      Profile for painter   Email painter         Edit/Delete Post 
Brevity, clarity and succinctness are not CC's long suit. Instead of stating the position with the eloquence that you just did, we got this illuminating discourse:

"Lets say you HAVE to eat a cookie..." as if we are children who need these issues simplified.

"It's like registering independent makes you feel superior or smarter or more open minded."

"Boring. Heard it before. Nice trick. Overused trick. Old trick."

"Find a new way to pat yourself on your brain. Oh wise one, oh open minded one, oh truely enlighted one, oh registered independent one."

"I got one up on you though. In VA we don't register by party - so I'm not a registered anything. I'm totally unlabeled. Totally untainted by party registration. Nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo. Yawn. Labeling yourself an independent is just that - yawn worthy. Oh, and totally f-ing meaningless."

"Get a life."

--------------------
it's here I sit and rust amid this ruin and rancor like tire irons
toothy grills and car parts before me...

IP: Logged
Filboid Sudge
Member
Member # 2745

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Filboid Sudge           Edit/Delete Post 
Noog, CC can vote for himself as a write-in candidate for all I care. He's the one who insisted someone pose the question to him. As for Neo-Conservative philosophy, I happen to think it's hugely damaging to the USA on just about any level you can name. But then, I'm a pro-labor lefty, so I would think that.

Reminds me of a quote I heard yesterday on the radio (sorry, didn't catch the speaker's name):

"Can I think of anything good that's come of George Bush's term in office? Hmmm, well he did help usher in the renaissance in American documentary filmmaking."

IP: Logged
Filboid Sudge
Member
Member # 2745

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Filboid Sudge           Edit/Delete Post 
BTW, great article, Shawn. And whether it comes to pass or not, it's the thought that counts, as my mother would say.

th'Missus

IP: Logged
Nooginstein
Member
Member # 2167

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nooginstein   Email Nooginstein         Edit/Delete Post 
Good one, Sudge, though if Michael Moore represents a renaissance, then documentary filmmaking must have really been in deep. (And can I, on a side note, just note the absolute arrogance and chutzpah of Moore to submit his screed to the Academy's "Best Film" category, "in order," as he put it, "to give someone else a chance" -- I mean, good God, the pure unbridled arrogance in such a statement, man how I despise that man!)


And sorry, CoffeeCat, for presuming to speak for you, but some of the confusion, for whatever reason, was driving me nuts.

IP: Logged



This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2  3  4 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Animation Nation

Animation Nation © 1999-2012

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0