If you could vote in the US Presidential Elections, who would you vote for?

[Jonas Strider]

Debate debate debate. Gundamit. when the hell are the debates? the moderators will pose tough questions that all of us would want to pose to each candidate. Then for all of us boneheads, we'll judge for ourselves who will best lead the US of A. screw the ads and mudslinging. bring me the national debates! arggg!

[Luvian]

Most people associating with a party are as short sighted and unwilling admit faults as video game fanboys..

Politics take smart people and turn them into tools...

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Luvian: Most people associating with a party are as short sighted and unwilling admit faults as video game fanboys..

On a side note, rumors are, that Bush will rename the Presidential Admimistration to "teh l33t d00dz".

[ 09-12-2004, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Timber Loftis]

[img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Okay, let's get to fear-mongering. The Dems do NOT have a corner on the market anymore. Did you miss Cheney's threat that if you elect Kerry we WILL see more terrorist attacks? That's the most obvious form of fear-mongering I've EVER seen. How does he know? Does he have terrorists waiting in the wings to unleash? Is it an overt threat??? Enquiring minds want to know.

Now, let's look to domestic issues. Bush has a bunch of you sold on two things: Kerry will raise taxes and Kerry sides with lawyers. Hmmm.... Kerry will only raise taxes on those making over $200,000, so why are all you layman on the bandwagon with opposing that? It's so funny to see the prolitariat up in arms about evils visited upon the aristocracy. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] You guys are fighting someone else's battle.

On to the lawyers. Ever notice who he is defending -- rich doctors. Poor anaesthesiologists who make $400,000 a year just to go in and put someone to sleep 2-3 hours a day, and spend the rest of their lives on the golf course. Hospitals and thier internal surgeons who get paid very well but are force to work long hours, resulting in them sewing up medical equipment inside bodies. Yep, those horrible plaintiffs and their lawyers, wanting to get -- *gasp* -- money for the screwups doctors make.

Malpractice in the medical community is too high. So let's hit the lawyers? That sounds like the wrong solution to me. I propose one of two solutions: (1) pass labor laws for doctors that prevent hospitals from running them through 36-hour shifts, or (2) let the plaintiff's lawyers keep suing suing suing until the hospitals figure out that they should do #1 on their own.

But Bush's solution -- to dictate from on high that no one's pain and suffering is worth more than $X -- is not only wrong, it also affects ONLY those patients who actually suffer the most. And, it caters to doctors and hospitals, WHO ALREADY HAVE very favorable laws in most every state (with SEVERE limits to malpractice suits).

Doctors and hospitals have one of the single strongest lobbying bases in this country -- don't let them lead you around by the nose.

But, hey, it helps me either way -- we work a lot with our booming health care practice department. [img]smile.gif[/img] Pass laws limiting malpractice suits if you like -- if it makes you feel better. Go ahead, pretend that lawyers won't find alternative ways to screw defendants.

[Knightscape]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Okay, let's get to fear-mongering. The Dems do NOT have a corner on the market anymore. Did you miss Cheney's threat that if you elect Kerry we WILL see more terrorist attacks? That's the most obvious form of fear-mongering I've EVER seen. How does he know? Does he have terrorists waiting in the wings to unleash? Is it an overt threat??? Enquiring minds want to know. Now, let's look to domestic issues. Bush has a bunch of you sold on two things: Kerry will raise taxes and Kerry sides with lawyers. Hmmm.... Kerry will only raise taxes on those making over $200,000, so why are all you layman on the bandwagon with opposing that? It's so funny to see the prolitariat up in arms about evils visited upon the aristocracy. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] You guys are fighting someone else's battle. On to the lawyers. Ever notice who he is defending -- rich doctors. Poor anaesthesiologists who make $400,000 a year just to go in and put someone to sleep 2-3 hours a day, and spend the rest of their lives on the golf course. Hospitals and thier internal surgeons who get paid very well but are force to work long hours, resulting in them sewing up medical equipment inside bodies. Yep, those horrible plaintiffs and their lawyers, wanting to get -- *gasp* -- money for the screwups doctors make. Malpractice in the medical community is too high. So let's hit the lawyers? That sounds like the wrong solution to me. I propose one of two solutions: (1) pass labor laws for doctors that prevent hospitals from running them through 36-hour shifts, or (2) let the plaintiff's lawyers keep suing suing suing until the hospitals figure out that they should do #1 on their own. But Bush's solution -- to dictate from on high that no one's pain and suffering is worth more than $X -- is not only wrong, it also affects ONLY those patients who actually suffer the most. And, it caters to doctors and hospitals, WHO ALREADY HAVE very favorable laws in most every state (with SEVERE limits to malpractice suits). Doctors and hospitals have one of the single strongest lobbying bases in this country -- don't let them lead you around by the nose. But, hey, it helps me either way -- we work a lot with our booming health care practice department. [img]smile.gif[/img] Pass laws limiting malpractice suits if you like -- if it makes you feel better. Go ahead, pretend that lawyers won't find alternative ways to screw defendants.

Didn't Cheney publicly recind his comment on Kerry and terrorist attacks?

People making over $200 000 a year can afford lawyers and accountants to figure out ways for them to keep as much of there money as before the tax increase. In the end it is always the little guy that ends up paying more. eg. A doctor making over $200 000 a year is hit with a much larger tax bill, his solution, raise his price for seeing patients. He ends up making the same amount after taxes and the little guy ends up paying the extra taxes.
The same doctor gets hit with a large malpractice lawsuit, and instead of going to court just settles because his insurance provider insists on it. The insurance carrier pays the settlement and then rasies everyones insurance rates. Once again the little guy ends up paying. The doctor just gives up practicing and retires to work on his putting, leaving the community with one less much needed doctor.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, I think this is ingenious!!! Every wrong visited upon another person that results in a lawsuit could be easily solved -- by just outlawing the lawsuit. That's one helluva social plan you got there. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Now, let's get on to re-hiring those youngsters to clean out the textile machinery and chimneys!! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Knightscape]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, I think this is ingenious!!! Every wrong visited upon another person that results in a lawsuit could be easily solved -- by just outlawing the lawsuit. That's one helluva social plan you got there. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

The law is there to protect people, it should never be used as a get rich quick scheme.

Now, let's get on to re-hiring those youngsters to clean out the textile machinery and chimneys!! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Kids will have to be getting jobs to help out their parents if by some chance Kerry wins and implements his tax increases. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

So, who are you to question a jury of 12 that decide losing a leg to a botched umputation is worth X amount of money?? You go tell that injured party that you think they're just a get-rich-quick opportunist. Who are you to say that the law did more than protect that person and did not do exactly what you said it should -- simply protect them.

Bah -- never mind, it's not worth discussing with you.

Kerry's tax increases are only different than Bush's for the wealthy. Neither one has balanced their budget -- both are promising more than there is money to pay for.

[Knightscape]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: So, who are you to question a jury of 12 that decide losing a leg to a botched umputation is worth X amount of money?? You go tell that injured party that you think they're just a get-rich-quick opportunist. Who are you to say that the law did more than protect that person and did not do exactly what you said it should -- simply protect them.

I am a citizen in a free country where people discuss and debate differing ideas.

I am a citizen of Canada where individuals have rights to rule of law, where an ijured party can be reparated properly, and where a balance is struck so all concerned are treated fairly.

Bah -- never mind, it's not worth discussing with you.

Kerry's tax increases are only different than Bush's for the wealthy. Neither one has balanced their budget -- both are promising more than there is money to pay for.

Tax increases are always passed along to the people most unable to afford them.

Another example (After getting hit by a large tax increase a computer company examines its book and determines that it no longer has sufficient funds to pay for its new factory, determining that the only way to increase it's available funds is to increase it's profits, prices on computers are raised.) The little guy ends on paying the taxes in the long run.

[Gab]

Originally posted by Knightscape: Getting rid of the deficit by adding another 2 trillion plus in spending? Creating more jobs by raising taxes? Haven't heard much about his so-called enviroment plan.

2 trillion more in spending?! Where did you get that?

There's no proof that low taxes = more jobs. Business don't always invest, they sometimes just horde the money.

Kerry's plan for the enviroment is to reverse the Bush-Cheney rollbacks to the Clean Air Act and spend more money on innovative, job creative programs that reduce emissions that contribute to global warming.

To say Bush has no economic plan is inaccurate. You may or may not agree with his plan but it is there.

How is he going to get rid of the deficit?

What's he going to do about the rising costs of healthcare?

What plan does he have for the enviroment?

With reguard to Iraq, once again you may not like his plan for Iraq but to dismiss his reasoning altogether is incorrect.

Says you.

[ 09-12-2004, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]