3rd Presidential Debate

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Can somebody explain to me how:

Prescription drugs from Canada = BAD
Flu shot from Canada = GOOD

Please, anyone?

Also, I loved how Bush lied right in the first 15 minutes or so regarding OBL. And it's totally delicious that the video is all over the place.
 
Boston01 said:
"Understanding Tax Cuts"
by: David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner,
so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it
came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college
professors, is how our tax system works. The
people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may
not show up anymore. In fact, they might start
eating overseas where the atmosphere is
somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

To be a Ph. D., this comparison seems not exact enough. I would wonder if the richest 10% of the American population paid 59% or 49% of all the U.S. taxes. Is that a fact? I don´t think so. Maybe the richest 10% (or rather 2-3%?) pay 59% or 49% of what they earn (tax deductible amount), but not more or less the half of all the taxes.

Therefore, if the 10th person doesn´t show up, the other 90% of the population still can pay "dinner", if you equivalate dinner with all the taxes that have to be paid. If they can´t pay, maybe they´ll just go somewhere else - in another restaurant where you can eat cheaper. Indeed, the whole menu for all of the ten persons was decided by the tenth person by lobbying the kitchen.

If the people who pay the highest taxes settle (or "eat") somewhere else, the reason could be that its cheaper there.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I love America, man. It´s a great country. It pissed me off in various ways, but anyway its great. Especially for all the nature you got. New Orleans was just amazing. Grand Canyon the same.

You should vote Kerry, diamond.
 
I would just like to say that this whole issue regarding Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney is totally ludicrous. Flat out stupidity. If anyone is trying to gain political ground here for the comment, are the Cheneys Sr. with their performances as the 'offended parents'.

Its funny how, when Edwards mentioned Cheney's daughter, Cheney replied with a 'thank you for your kind comments'. But when Kerry tries to offer a similar observation by saying that everyone is God's children, he gets berated by the suddenly offended parents.

I find it quite significant that Mary Cheney herself has not, to this date, commented at all.

Ant.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
Yes, I love America, man. It´s a great country. It pissed me off in various ways, but anyway its great. Especially for all the nature you got. New Orleans was just amazing. Grand Canyon the same.

You should vote Kerry, diamond.
Grand Canyon?:huh:
Why didn't you look me up when you were in my backyard?

Also did your opinon change a bit of Republicans when you met some in the flesh realizing their sexiness or has it remain the same?

db9
 
The Canyon was just a oneday tour starting from Vegas. Sorry for not ringing you up, wouldve liked to have a few drinks :shrug:

Actually I only met one rich Republican Lady, in San Jose, Costa Rica. Mentally, she was a bitchy idiot, so I didn´t give a flying f*** about her, just having a few drinks with her and her friends. I didn´t meet any other Republicans who I´d call sexy. In some cases I didn´t have time to find out if they were Republicans or Democrats ;)
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
Do you mean that many Americans are the opinion that consensus building is not for the good of the interests of their own nation?

As I noted in my other post, at times consensus building can be beneficial, at other times consensus building can be a hindrance.

whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
I have another question - haven´t heard a "conservative reply" on this one: what about the American aspirations to be the "Leader of the Free World"? I spoke with Americans who openly told me that I, as a European, should thank America for invading Iraq, because that nation was a threat to all the world etc. etc.; Europeans shopuld be thankful that America makes the world a safer place (which I doubt seriously, mind you! but lets stick to the topic).

If you are an American thinking that America has the right to be the "Leader of the Free World", how on earth do you think this is gonna work out? With a nationalist American, who puts American values on the top, before of any others? Or with a strategy of consensus?

There are many who think the US is already the leader of the free world and that we don't need to "apply" for the position again. In essence, if the US acts in its own best interest, it should be the best interest for the rest of you.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just trying to explain what I believe the mindset to be.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I think that's probably true and a very sad statement about the arrogance and ignorance of this segment of the US population.

The DNC needs to learn to attract this base, instead of dismissing it as "arrogant" or "ignorant". I doubt the "we are just smarter than you" theme will help win elections.
 
nbcrusader said:

There are many who think the US is already the leader of the free world and that we don't need to "apply" for the position again. In essence, if the US acts in its own best interest, it should be the best interest for the rest of you.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just trying to explain what I believe the mindset to be.

How come many are already thinking so?

The U.S. isn´t the leader of the free world. If the world is free, there is no leader.

For this position, the U.S. would need to apply again and again - every day, to every country, to every man on the street. Actions speak louder than words.

Also, it isn´t enough to think you´re the "leader", you have to prove it constantly. Apart of that, you can´t be the leader, if most other countries do not agree.

First of all, I think this mindset is misled and arrogant. I also think its wrong; the U.S. interest can´t be the same like the interest of all other nations - see United Nations.

So this mindset is a little naive, excuse me but it is, because it just doesn´t acknowledge the fact there are 6 billions of people, not only all the U.S. inhabitants who "know whats best".

"The rest of you" includes so many different countries, people and opinions.

Anyway, I can understand the mindset - like mentioned before, historically the French were thinking the same.

This is a very dangerous mindset. To say it clearly, this mindset is about power. The U.S. is the most powerful nation on earth - and power corrupts.

In reality people who have this mindset want to dominate the world. Let´s face it, that´s what it´s all about. I don´t believe the majority of U.S. Citizens with this mindset are naive - I think they are arrogant nationalists, misled and corrupted by consuming. Probably they don´t have enough TVs.
 
nbcrusader said:


The DNC needs to learn to attract this base, instead of dismissing it as "arrogant" or "ignorant". I doubt the "we are just smarter than you" theme will help win elections.

How else would you describe a group of people who dismiss everything outside their tiny known world.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
I would also like your personal opinion. Do you think its right, or wrong?

I look at the situation as follows:

Generally, consensus is better than unilateral action. However, I would not want a leader who would sacrifice our sovereign best interests for the sake of gaining consensus.

Think of it like negotiating a contract. I want the absolute best possible deal for my client. There are terms, however, that can be so one-sided in my favor, that I can hurt the other side in a way that hurts me. Thus, I need to achieve “consensus” to ensure that my terms respect the needs of the other side. But I am reluctant to give too much, as it only means that the other side is benefiting at my expense.

But to your big picture questions:

Should we take over (dominate) the world? No.

Must the world adopt all our values and beliefs? No.

Are American values best? This is hard to answer. If we recognized better values elsewhere, wouldn’t we adopt them for ourselves?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
How else would you describe a group of people who dismiss everything outside their tiny known world.

Why would you assume that they have dismissed "everything outside their world"? Perhaps people think through these things and come to a different conclusion.
 
nbcrusader said:

Are American values best? This is hard to answer. If we recognized better values elsewhere, wouldn’t we adopt them for ourselves?

That´s the problem with nationalism. In general, nationalism forbids you to recognize that other values are better than the ones of your country. After all, it´s your nation´s values, not another nation´s values.

I also don´t think you´d adopt them so easily. Just two examples, I could make more of them.. look at the percentange of Americans who die of heart attack due to fat, unhealthy food. It´s very clear that U.S. citizens would be better off with a change in consumer habits. It´s also clear that most of the U.S. citizens (except of a tiny group of energy moguls), and all the world, would be better off if the U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol. Where´s the best interest of the nation? Is it an American value to pollute as much as possible? An American value to waste food?

Sorry, I think you wouldn´t adopt better values that you can recognize elsewhere. You wouldn´t think it to be "American".

By the way, your consensus policy sounds quite clear - but that´s exactly what I said: If you "want the absolute best possible deal for my client", you have to decide who the client is: America or the "free world"?

If you say you just "achieve “consensus” to ensure that my terms respect the needs of the other side. But I am reluctant to give too much, as it only means that the other side is benefiting at my expense." then you are not acting in the "free worlds" best interest, but in your own best interest.

Get it? You have to decide for one of the two positions - decide for one client. Assuming that what America needs is exactly what the world needs, is intellectual harakiri.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
That´s the problem with nationalism. In general, nationalism forbids you to recognize that other values are better than the ones of your country. After all, it´s your nation´s values, not another nation´s values.

This, of course, depends on the willingness of any individual to learn, understand and be influenced by other values. In a pure sense, nationalism prevents you from doing so.

whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
I also don´t think you´d adopt them so easily. Just two examples, I could make more of them.. look at the percentange of Americans who die of heart attack due to fat, unhealthy food. It´s very clear that U.S. citizens would be better off with a change in consumer habits. It´s also clear that most of the U.S. citizens (except of a tiny group of energy moguls), and all the world, would be better off if the U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol. Where´s the best interest of the nation? Is it an American value to pollute as much as possible? An American value to waste food?

Good examples. Regarding the first, I believe our national values have been cheapened by consumerism. Your example of food is right on. This weekend, our church introduced this year's mission program for children. Children will be specifically helping families who live in the garbage dumps of Cairo. One thing that really caught the children's attention is that the food these people people comes from the garbage. And what they don't eat goes to their animals. Four days later, I am in Las Vegas watching the gross excesses of your typical casino buffet. We are a consumer nation.

Kyoto we can differ on.

whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
By the way, your consensus policy sounds quite clear - but that´s exactly what I said: If you "want the absolute best possible deal for my client", you have to decide who the client is: America or the "free world"?

In the context of voting for a President, the client I want represented is America.
 
nbcrusader said:


This, of course, depends on the willingness of any individual to learn, understand and be influenced by other values. In a pure sense, nationalism prevents you from doing so.

Good examples. Regarding the first, I believe our national values have been cheapened by consumerism. Your example of food is right on. This weekend, our church introduced this year's mission program for children. Children will be specifically helping families who live in the garbage dumps of Cairo. One thing that really caught the children's attention is that the food these people people comes from the garbage. And what they don't eat goes to their animals. Four days later, I am in Las Vegas watching the gross excesses of your typical casino buffet. We are a consumer nation.

Kyoto we can differ on.

In the context of voting for a President, the client I want represented is America.

Nationalism: agreed.

Food: good project in your church :up:

...I can assure you it is ashaming and disgusting to see people eating out of trash cans. I witnessed that on the market of Granada, and to see this with my own eyes was a shock. I even offered to buy the persons some fresh food, but because I am not fluent in Spanish, they thought I wanted to forbid them eating out of trashcans.

If you travel to some of the countries we´re talking about, and if you care to see poverty with your own eyes (which means not staying in a resort), it will change your mindset. I am not able to go to a Vegas buffet without thinking "What an incedible waste". I can enjoy good food, but wasting makes me sick.

This is why I would wish Americans would travel more. Travel more real, to see what a poor country is about. Many would enjoy their holidays even more. It is a totally different world unveiling.

If you say that you want America to be represented, you agree that the U.S. President CAN´T POSSIBLY BE the "leader of the free world". That´s ok by me, fine, you are the first conservative person who I meet who´s able to admit that there can be only one client your best interest goes to. In fact, the U.S. President is the leader of the United States. Not the leader of the "free world". :yes:
 
nbcrusader said:


Why would you assume that they have dismissed "everything outside their world"? Perhaps people think through these things and come to a different conclusion.

I know many who fall in the category you describe and I'm not just speaking about the current situation. They have never touched foot on foreign land, they know nothing about other cultures, they can't even recall what was in their history books correctly yet they believe anything the US does is what the world needs and that's that.

I'm not saying we have to answer to or take into consideration, but it's not a good sign when the rest of the world would vote for the other guy. He's the president of the US, but we're all living on the same planet and we want someone who can help us do that without making more enemies.
 
PING: NBC and Hip Hop--

Ya'll are officially invited to join me in forming this nonprofit which it has always been a dream of mine to form. It's called Peace Travel, and it's purpose is global understanding thru person to person contact. With the windfall of funding that will no doubt arrive :wink: :eyebrow: , what I want to try to do is fully fund trips to places for folks who would never otherwise have the chance to go. It opens minds and changes lives, I tell ya. :D

:wave:

SD
 
Sherry Darling said:
PING: NBC and Hip Hop--

Ya'll are officially invited to join me in forming this nonprofit which it has always been a dream of mine to form. It's called Peace Travel, and it's purpose is global understanding thru person to person contact. With the windfall of funding that will no doubt arrive :wink: :eyebrow: , what I want to try to do is fully fund trips to places for folks who would never otherwise have the chance to go. It opens minds and changes lives, I tell ya. :D

:wave:

SD

If you are serious about forming a non-profit, I have done a number. PM me if you need help with the legal stuff.
 
All this shit about who speaks well during a debate, or who has the better family values, or who looks better, it's all bullshit. Give me a feckin President that will live up to his expectations, who shows the country that he will represent us as a country to respect and fear. Bring our troops home and quit spending lives and trillions of dollars. Finish the war with dignity. And what the hell ever happened to Al Quaeda? <<Fight the real enemy!>>
Bush seems to be in a daze about that. Get the stocks up, get the employment up, protect medicare, and most of all, make me proud to be an American!
 
Hiphop, this American has visited Europe several times. The foreign countries I've been to include Canada, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Switzerland and Italy. Sorry, I never made it to Austria. :wink: I want to go to Istanbul, but I don't know if I'll ever make it there. I will have to be a bit lucky.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:


If you are serious about forming a non-profit, I have done a number. PM me if you need help with the legal stuff.

:hyper:

Wow, thanks NBC. I can't PM, since I'm not premium, but here is my email, or of course I'm happy to email you as well. This is still in the thinking stages but :D cduckwo1@gmu.edu

Peace,
Cheryl
 
Schwarzenegger

"I don't know why I watched the presidential debates," he said. "If I want to watch a smart liberal Democrat and a Republican leader argue, all we have to do is go out to dinner. They were lucky. They only had to do it three times."
 
Back
Top Bottom