[Reefland]

Alright, I'm stuck at work and haven't seen it yet (I'm sure I'll catch it on C-Span when I get home) so what's the skinny? Was it worth watching?

[saltjunkie]

Was at the brandod Ale house,
had an Ale house combo appatizer(damn, thats a f-ed up word to spell????) , and a Zinger melt

[Michelle]

They were dressed exactly alike, even their ties, thought that was pretty funny!

[Ninong]

Presidential debates are nothing more than staged political theater. The only purpose they serve is allowing the challenger to gain wider exposure. No sitting president would ever agree to debate his challenger if he thought there was any way he could avoid it. So in that sense, it does even the playing field a little by allowing the challenger to be seen and heard by a large audience.

Let's face it. This was not Lincoln-Douglas. Nothing was truly "debated." The candidates were not even allowed to address questions to each other. It is entertainment, just as TV news has become more entertainment than actual news.

Chances are JFK would not have beaten Nixon were it not for the debates -- especially the first one.

[Ninong]

Here is a look at some of the major issues that Republican President Bush and Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts debated Wednesday night in their third and final confrontation:.

On the economy:

President Bush: He said he had inherited a recession, which was exacerbated by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but that the economy had produced 1.9 million new jobs over the last year. He boasted that his tax cuts helped fuel the economic recovery.

Sen. John Kerry: He said the economy had lost 1.6 million jobs during Bush's four-year term. He also vowed to increase the federal minimum wage for low-income workers from $5.15 an hour to $7 an hour by 2007.

Bottom line: Presidents always get too much credit for job gains and too much blame for job losses. Kerry's figure reflects only private-sector jobs losses, while Bush's includes the number of new public sector jobs, which has increased. Overall, there has been a net loss of about 800,000 jobs over the last four years, making Bush the first president since Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression to preside over a net loss of jobs..

On taxes:

Bush: He said he would make permanent his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He warned that Kerry could not be trusted to cut taxes, saying Kerry had voted 98 times in the Senate for tax increases.

Kerry: He pledged to keep the middle-class tax cut for families earning under $200,000, but he vowed to roll back the Bush tax cut for wealthier Americans to pay for health care, homeland security and other programs.

Bottom line: An independent analysis by www.factcheck.org found that most of Kerry's votes cited by the Bush campaign would have raised taxes only on upper-income taxpayers. The president's number, 98, also includes all votes -- procedural, to cut off debate and substantive -- on tax bills, not 98 separate tax increases. Making Bush's tax cuts permanent would cost $549 billion through 2009 and $2.2 trillion through 2014..

On health care:

Bush: He proposed expanding the use of individual medical savings accounts, boosting tax deductions for medical expenses and helping small businesses pool together to buy cheaper coverage. He said Kerry's health plan would be too expensive. "It's an empty promise," Bush said.

Kerry: He said he would give subsidies to companies to insure 27 million Americans who currently lack health insurance and would allow Americans to buy into the same health care plan members of Congress have.

Bottom line: Kerry's plan is more costly -- estimated at $653 billion over 10 years by Emory University economist Kenneth Thorpe -- but would cover more of the nation's 45 million uninsured. Health care experts said neither candidate had a realistic plan to lower health premiums, which rose at more than five times the rate of inflation this year, or to fix Medicare, which is projected to run out of funds by 2019..

On same-sex marriage:

Bush: He said he opposed same-sex marriage and was forced to act to support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions because of "activist judges." He would not say whether he believed homosexuality was a choice.

Kerry: He said he also opposes same-sex marriage but is against the constitutional amendment. On the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice, he said, "I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."

Bottom line: Polls show a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage but also oppose a constitutional ban. The amendment already has been defeated in the House and Senate, but political analysts say it may have served its role in rallying Bush's base of religious conservative voters..

On Social Security:

Bush: He said younger workers should be able to put some of their Social Security withholdings into private saving accounts, which he said would earn better rates of return than the Social Security trust. He said current seniors' benefits would not be affected.

Kerry: He opposed efforts to privatize parts of Social Security, calling it "an invitation to disaster." He said the Congressional Budget Office had estimated that privatization would create a "$2 trillion hole in Social Security because today's workers pay into the system for today's retirees."

Bottom line: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said the rising numbers of Baby Boomers could eventually force benefit cuts or tax increases unless there are changes. Most independent analysts predict a future president will have to raise the retirement age -- something no candidate wants to admit in a campaign..

On immigration:

Bush: The president called for a "temporary worker card" to allow employers to hire foreign workers legally. He said he strongly opposed a plan for amnesty, favored by Kerry, which would grant citizenship to illegal immigrants who have been in the country for many years.

Kerry: He said the Mexican border was less protected today than before the Sept. 11 attacks. He said he supported amnesty for illegal immigrants who "have been here for a long time, stayed out of trouble, got a job, paid their taxes, and their kids are American."

Bottom line: Bush proposed a guest worker program four years ago but abandoned the effort after Republicans in Congress opposed it. It's even less likely that Congress would approve amnesty for illegal immigrants..

On budget deficits:

Bush: He said the combination of the Sept. 11 attacks, a recession and the war in Iraq contributed to a record $422 billion deficit this year and a projected $2.3 trillion 10-year deficit. He vowed to cut the deficit in half over five years with "pro-growth policies that grow our economy and fiscal sanity in the halls of Congress."

Kerry: He pledged to cut the deficit in half in four years and restore the "pay-as-you-go" rule of the 1990s. "Being lectured by the president on fiscal responsibility is a little bit like Tony Soprano talking to me about law and order in this country," he said.

Bottom line: Neither candidate is preparing for the reality that as 77 million Baby Boomers retire, payouts for Social Security and Medicare will vastly outstrip revenues. Experts predict a $40 trillion to $72 trillion "fiscal gap," which eventually could force major tax increases or benefits cuts, and perhaps both.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGBU99G3U1.DTL

[Ninong]

Do you like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia? George W. Bush has said that they are his two favorite Supreme Court justices.

During the next four years it is highly likely that at least three of the present justices will retire: Rehnquist (ultra conservative), O'Connor (progressive conservative) and Stevens (moderate).

If you would like to see Antonin Scalia become the next Chief Justice and if you welcome the idea of three more totally unqualified conservative synchophants like Clarence Thomas on the court, then vote for Bush. That should guarantee the reversal of Roe v. Wade for starters. No telling how long it would last (20 years?) or where it would end up but the split would be 6-3 to the right instead of the current 5-4 that drifts right or left of center depending on Sandra Day O'Connor's view of the issue at hand.

[Ninong]

Here is the Washington Post's version of the misstatements made by both candidates in last night's presidential debate: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6243846/

[Poseidon]

WOW Thanks for the "cliff notes" version George. I am still torn between the better of two losers!! Though W has sent me a couple checks in the mail, which was nice) I recently found myself looking for new work. There is NOTHING out there other then minimum wage jobs and Insurance, financial advisor type positions. As a last ditch effort I did attend a class to get my life insurance license in the State of Michigan. I learned a LOT about how screwed up Medicare is now! For every admission to a hospital a senior must pay a $912 COPAY!!! Then on TOP of that Medicare does not EVEN COVER the cost of Dr.'s or specialists, you have to BUY "PART B" to get that coverage, it costs almost $90 per month!! Prescription drugs??? LOL NOT COVERED! No wonder our seniors are crying FOUL!! It seems neither of these canidates have a real plan to fix what is so obviously broken! Both of them will be covered for life! Why can't the "wealthiest most POWERFUL country the world has ever seen" come up with a National Health care plan that works for it's citizens??? Our Neighbors to the North have one, and our Allies across the pond have one... Hell even the Soviet Union did a better job of taking care of it's citizens then we do!!

So- does one of these canidates get the Ninong Endorsement? Or are you in the same boat as me?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

For every admission to a hospital a senior must pay a $912 COPAY!!!

It doesn't go up to $912 until next year. It's $876 this year. It was 700 hundred something when I had my first eye surgery in 2001. You still have to pay 20% yourself, too. Medicare pays only 80% of whatever they approve. The good thing is that they never approve anything close to what the hospital or doctor bills for the procedure and then you only have to pay 20% of the reduced figure that they approved. The bad thing is that many doctors refuse to accept Medicare patients for that reason.

Then on TOP of that Medicare does not EVEN COVER the cost of Dr.'s or specialists, you have to BUY "PART B" to get that coverage, it costs almost $90 per month!!

The Part B premium is $66.60/month this year but it rises to $78.20 next year. Part B is optional. You can take it or leave it but you would be stupid not to take it. That's the part that pays the doctors' bills. Part A pays the hospital bills. Are you sure the school you attended is accredited?

Prescription drugs??? LOL NOT COVERED!

Yes and no. There is a stupid discount program in place now and Bush's dumb plan goes into effect in either 2006 or 2007, I forget which because I think it sucks anyway.

So- does one of these canidates get the Ninong Endorsement? Or are you in the same boat as me?

I'm a Democrat. I will vote for the Democratic candidate. I would have preferred someone a little more moderate but Kerry managed to win the nomination. I hope this doesn't turn out to be a repeat of the McGovern experiment. I could never vote for George W. Bush or anyone even remotely like him. I might consider voting for a moderate Republican if it were not for the fact that the Republican Party is presently controlled by the right-wing religious fanatics who would exert undue influence on whomever the party's nominee happened to be. Look at how John McCain has changed his tune in a shameless effort to position himself for a possible run in 2008. I don't believe I would ever vote for a Republican for the House or the Senate because of the implications of party control.

In hindsight, slick Willie Clinton wasn't so bad after all. Maybe we should be looking for another slick talking Southerner who cheats on his wife but runs up budget surpluses. Clinton reduced the size of government, Bush has expanded it greatly. Clinton reformed welfare in spite of the Black Caucus and organized labor. Clinton balanced the budget the last three years and created 23 million new jobs. Bush has lost jobs during his four years in office. Clinton gave a damn about the environment, Bush couldn't care less. Bush is simple minded and "resolute" (his favorite new word) and sees everything in black or white just like all former drunks. It's his way or the highway. We have never been this despised overseas in our entire history thanks to the arrogance and incompetence of this president.

[Poseidon]

Oops sorry George I was rounding the dollar figures and thought it was 88.70 not 78.20. And yes I did use 2005 numbers since those will be in effect when whoever wins takes/retains office.

On the issue of minimum wage, my thoughts are anytime that increases cost of living also seems to increase. Like milk goes up, gas goes up etc etc, so those that are NOT making minimum wage now make "less" since it costs more to but groceries and such. I don't make minimum wage and if it does go up I won't get a raise to match that increase so I lose. Granted I think the whole idea of minimum wage is outdated, and anyone that makes ONLY that is in serious hurt. In my area even a 1 bedroom apartment is $500 a month. So even at 6.00/hr it takes 83.333 hours to make rent BEFORE TAX! That doesn't leave much for other needs like FOOD, HEAT, CAR, Clothes etc etc etc... SO this person HAS to get assistance to make ends meet, which puts a burden on all of us... I just think our whole economic system needs a serious look. I have been out of work 2 months, I start a new job 10-27-04 making 28.5K a year, with overtime available on weekends. My previous job paid 49K!!! I will need to fill the gap somewhere or I will be forced to sell my house. Not a place I want to be in. Not saying it is W's fault that I lost my job, not saying Kerry can fix it, but why is there such a desparity between teh haves and have nots in middle class?

[Ninong]

The issue of a minimum wage and the issue of compulsory employer provided health insurance are closely related. And yes, the burden is borne by society as a whole one way or the other. If the minimum wage goes up and/or employers are required to provide health insurance coverage to all employees, then the prices we pay for meals in restaurants, etc., will go up. On the other hand, if employees at the lowest pay levels are paid inadequate wages and not covered by health insurance, we pay for that, too, in the form of public assistance and free hospital emergency room treatment. One could stretch this even further and say that we pay for it in the form of higher crime rates.

McDonalds and Burger King do not provide health insurance. Not here anyway. They do in countries like France and Germany because it is the law there. Maybe if the cost of a Big Mac or a Whopper went up some it would benefit all of us in the form of lower health insurance claims for early heart attacks.

A minimum wage is not something on the front burner of compassionate conservatives like George W. Bush. Neither is national health coverage. After all, "compassionate conservative" is just a motto. You're not supposed to take it literally. According to George W. Bush we would all be better off if each person looked out for his own best interests and government was reduced to providing for the national defense and very little else. This is a guy who up until very recently openly called for the elimination of the social security system and the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations. Oh, and let's not forget the elimination of the Federal Reserve System and the return of the gold standard.

Extreme compassionate conservatives like George W. Bush believe that government has no business getting involved in people's personal lives. That includes helping people. You're supposed to inherit your daddy's money or your granddaddy's money so that you will never have to worry about such things as unemployment or health care costs. That means that the government should not collect taxes from you to pay for someone's else's six kids or to fund their retirement. Let them fund their own retirement with their own money. This all goes back to the New Deal and all of the programs (like social security) that FDR put in place to deal with the Great Depression. Republicans have been trying to undo the New Deal for the past 70 years.

If you need help, you're supposed to go to your local pastor for assistance. Let them hand out the money based on how well you meet their peculiar requirements. Faith based initiatives. That's the ticket. Let Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell handle the money. How about Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert, too. Give them some of it.

And let's do away with public schools. Everybody gets a voucher and they can take it to the school of their choice. That should take care of that stupid Brown v. Board of Education thing without having to get the Supremes involved.

Which is worse, a society that refuses to care for its children and needy citizens or one that exerts total control over their lives. Both are extremes. Saying that society as a whole would be better off if each individual looked after his own welfare is all well and good but that is as utopian as saying that society would prosper if each individual contributed according to his talents and shared equally in the fruits of everyone's labor. That's communism. It may work in religious orders but it doesn't work in real life. Neither does extreme compassionate conservatism.

If you want to stimulate the economy with a large tax refund, would it be better to give $100 billion to people making less than $40K/year or to give it to people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? If you give money to people making less than $40K/year they will spend most of it on living expenses, which will boost the economy. If you give it to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet it will have no effect whatsoever on the economy because their spending habits would not change one way or the other. And neither one would buy their own company's stock because both are still overpriced.

[Ninong]

Remember this bit that I posted earlier in this thread:

On same-sex marriage:

Bush: He said he opposed same-sex marriage and was forced to act to support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions because of "activist judges." He would not say whether he believed homosexuality was a choice.

Kerry: He said he also opposes same-sex marriage but is against the constitutional amendment. On the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice, he said, "I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."

Seems the right-wing religious nuts have come down hard on Dick Cheney in the past 24 hours or so. When a similar comment was made by John Edwards during the Vice-Presidential debate Cheney thanked him for his kind words about his family and his daughter. No more mister nice guy! Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes and all the other crackpots in the GOP must have put out the word. Suddenly both Dick and his lovely wife, Lynne (who wrote a novel with a lesbian theme), are horrified that their daughter's sexual orientation should be mentioned in public. It was "a tawdry political trick."

Let's see. I think we are talking about the same Mary Cheney who was living opening with her partner in Colorado when Cheney was nominated to be the veep four years ago. The same Mary Cheney who was Coors' liason to the gay/lesbian community. (Talk about mixed messages there. The only thing Pete Coors is interested in is selling beer and contributing to right-wing homophobic causes.) The same Mary Cheney who wears a gold band on her left hand and who sat side by side with her partner in the vice-president's box during daddy's acceptance speech at the Republican convention though neither joined the rest of the family onstage later. They seemed to conveniently disappear.

And isn't this the same Mary Cheney whose sexual orientation has been openly discussed by both of her parents on national television programs more than once. Are the Republicans so uptight that they can't acknowledge that their vice-president happens to have a gay daughter in the 21st. century?

Oh, that's right. Good old Republican sex. It should take place in the dark, fully clothed and with a respectable prostitute. And then if you're Jimmy Swaggert you should cry like a baby and say the devil misled you. Or if you're Henry Hyde you should say that it happened in your youth, when you were a mere 41. Yes, that Henry Hyde. The one who was trying to lynch Bill Clinton for hanky panky in the Oval Office. His extra-marital affair with his 25-yr-old assistant happened in his youth when he was only 41. And I can't leave out Louisiana's own Bob Livingston, who lost his Speakership of the House when it was revealed that he just happened to have had four separate, long-term extra-marital affairs during his extended stay in Washington.

P.S. -- Alan Keyes said last week that Mary Cheney was a "selfish hedonist" for "being a lesbian." What I want to know is this. Wasn't there any other Republican in the entire state of Illinois more qualified to run for the U.S. Senate than this nut? Too bad Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson aren't running for something this time around. They were always such entertaining crackpots in the previous debates.

P.P.S. -- Here is the exact exchange from last week's vice-presidential debate:

Said Edwards, "And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing."


After Edwards' comments in the debate, moderator Gwen Ifill told Cheney, "Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds."

"Well, Gwen," Cheney said, "let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much."

"That's it?" Ifill asked.

"That's it," Cheney said.

Lynne Cheney has been even more publicly conflicted about her daughter. Four years ago, when ABC reporter Cokie Roberts asked Lynne Cheney about her daughter being openly gay, Lynne Cheney said, "My daughter has never declared such a thing.''

Talk about hypocrisy! George Bush and Dick and Lynne Cheney don't believe gays are anti-family demons but want to win the votes of people who do. That's the real reason that Bush said he doesn't know if it's a matter of choice or not and the real reason Dick Cheney has suddenly changed his tune. And it's the reason Mary Cheney and her partner were not part of the family gathering on stage at the Republican convention.

Besides, Mary was draft deferrment number 5 for Dicky boy! They should be grateful. The first four were granted during his years bouncing back and forth between Yale and some little rinky dink community college in Wyoming (he went from Yale to the community college, not the other way around). Mary was conceived exactly two days after the draft boards announced that married men without children would henceforth be subject to the draft. This inspired little Dick and his lovely Republican bride to be suddenly overtaken with unbridled passion (with or without clothes?). Three months later Dicky applied for and was granted his fifth draft deferrment based on the fact that his wife was pregnant. Mary is now 34 years old and she has been out of the closet for several years. Too bad they forgot to tell her mom.