GG Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 So you've only just figured that out? AD sits in the midst of his little spiderweb, in the dark literally and figuratively, and throws venom and stones. He offers no solutions. He has nothing postive to say about anything. And he has nothing nice to say, unless someone with an equally negative view of everything comes along. 59320[/snapback] Anyone see my kettle? It's black in color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 If the libber say the debate was a tie , then that means Cheney won.The libbers just cant admit defeat. What a classless bunch of lamers .Kerry is scum , not for his Viet Nam service but what he said when he got home , while we still had soliders in POW camps. Komrade Kerry is a communists piece of dung and the brainless libbers will settle for this rather than vote for Bush what a total bunch of losers. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Will you lib parrots please finally lay off your Halliburton mantra? Halliburton got no bid contracts under Clinon as well. It's on the factcheck.org page ( can't get to it right now). Cheney deferred some of his pay for the late 90's over 5 years. This was in his contract and did it before he was VP. That is the money he is getting. It was for his work in the 90's. He got money for bonuses based on their earnings. The last of these he got in 2001, after he became VP because the amount of profits was not known until after he was inaugurated. To make sure decisions of the administration did not affect his income one way or the other, he took out an insurance policy (cost-$15K) to be sure that he was paid this deferred pay if administration policies harmed Haliburton and caused them to go bankrupt. Stock he had was sold and any options he had coming were put into an irrevokable trust for a charity (possibly $8M). Nothing the admin can do will affect Chenewy's income. The subsidiary that is in Iraq is losing money on these contracts. Of course, the libs ignore all of this - facts suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Maybe this is where your reading/listening comprehension is eluding you. Cheney did respond.Edwards threw a litany of charges against the wall, all of which have been soundly dismissed of any impropriety as they relate to Cheney's tenure as CEO or his ties once he became VP. But, hey, Edwards scored by saying Halliburton. Kinda rolls of your tongue, doesn't it? On a sidenote, care to talk about Kerry's A list for Treasury nominees? 59313[/snapback] You call that a response? That is changing the subject. And by the way, a number of these things are still pending investigation, and have not been "soundly dismissed." Perhaps that is where the objectivity is eluding you! The only one who has soundly dismissed the charges are Dick Cheney, and folks like you who believe whatever he tells you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 You call that a response? That is changing the subject. And by the way, a number of these things are still pending investigation, and have not been "soundly dismissed." Perhaps that is where the objectivity is eluding you! The only one who has soundly dismissed the charges are Dick Cheney, and folks like you who believe whatever he tells you.... 59434[/snapback] It received proper response given that this topic has been discussed, over discussed and uber discussed. Please enlighten me as to what investigations of Halliburton are still pending that relate in any shape or form to Cheney's role as CEO or his role as VP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 It received proper response given that this topic has been discussed, over discussed and uber discussed. Please enlighten me as to what investigations of Halliburton are still pending that relate in any shape or form to Cheney's role as CEO or his role as VP. 59445[/snapback] Those concerning Haliburtons' dealing with countries deemed as enemies of the united states, and the stashing of funds in off-shore bank accoounts... And as far as your assertion that that was the only response warrented, is silly. This is a debate, in front of the nation. The topic has been discussed "uber" by people on this board, perhaps, but not in any meaningful way on a national level. If Cheney is so strong in his conviction that he has nothing to hide, why not speak up for himself, rather than change the subject to deflect criticism, and refer people to a web-site! Lame! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Perhaps the indication that the Haliburton comments stung Cheney was the fact that he never addressed any of them. 59297[/snapback] Cheney's referall for the listening audience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Those concerning Haliburtons' dealing with countries deemed as enemies of the united states, and the stashing of funds in off-shore bank accoounts... And as far as your assertion that that was the only response warrented, is silly. This is a debate, in front of the nation. The topic has been discussed "uber" by people on this board, perhaps, but not in any meaningful way on a national level. If Cheney is so strong in his conviction that he has nothing to hide, why not speak up for himself, rather than change the subject to deflect criticism, and refer people to a web-site! Lame! 59460[/snapback] Good lord. Which part of the "30 seconds" did you miss? Edwards threw a litany of charges that span a decade. A lot of it is complex stuff that your soundbite craving crowd won't pick up if nailed on the head. Cheney properly deflected the bogus question by saying that the charges are baseless, they've been vetted, and if you care to look, here's the independent website. There's no reason to dwell on the issue, other than scoring points for the other side by repeating Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopsGuy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Here's a conspiracy theory for you: Halliburton wins no bid contracts because (A) Halliburton is the only company that can do the job, (B) the only other company that can do the job is Schlumberger and we can't be awarding contracts to companies that are ostensibly French. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Good lord. Which part of the "30 seconds" did you miss? Edwards threw a litany of charges that span a decade. A lot of it is complex stuff that your soundbite craving crowd won't pick up if nailed on the head. Cheney properly deflected the bogus question by saying that the charges are baseless, they've been vetted, and if you care to look, here's the independent website. There's no reason to dwell on the issue, other than scoring points for the other side by repeating Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton. 59488[/snapback] Sorry, but the incorporation of America is a big issue for me, and a lot of other people. I am very interested in what the vice president would have to say. It is troubling that Cheney, and president Bush both seem to feel that they are beyond reproach, and it is equally troubling that so many conservatives see this stuff as "no big deal". I honestly think president Bush and vice-presidnet Cheney have braught hyperbolie and effusiveness to a new level, and so many of you seem to be fine with it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Sorry, but the incorporation of America is a big issue for me, and a lot of other people. I am very interested in what the vice president would have to say. It is troubling that Cheney, and president Bush both seem to feel that they are beyond reproach, and it is equally troubling that so many conservatives see this stuff as "no big deal". I honestly think president Bush and vice-presidnet Cheney have braught hyperbolie and effusiveness to a new level, and so many of you seem to be fine with it.... 59549[/snapback] Read HopsGuy's post right above yours. If you want to be taken seriously, check your blind partisan bias at the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Sorry, but the incorporation of America is a big issue for me, and a lot of other people. I am very interested in what the vice president would have to say. It is troubling that Cheney, and president Bush both seem to feel that they are beyond reproach, and it is equally troubling that so many conservatives see this stuff as "no big deal". I honestly think president Bush and vice-presidnet Cheney have braught hyperbolie and effusiveness to a new level, and so many of you seem to be fine with it.... 59549[/snapback] So what about Haliburton or do the lefty losers use it for a buzz word to fill the empty space between their ears ,while the are watching the news that plays them like a fine fiddle , you know whats his name Rather and thier other hero Michael POS Moore :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 On Cheney's votes and MLK holiday, meals on wheels, etc: Come on now. No one cared about this Mickey Mouse stevestojan in the 2000 election, and after 9/11 and the start of WWIII, no one will care about this stevestojan in 2004 either. 58705[/snapback] Spoken like a true out of touch white guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Read HopsGuy's post right above yours. If you want to be taken seriously, check your blind partisan bias at the door. 59556[/snapback] If you want to portray yourself as unpartisan seriously, keep quiet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Read HopsGuy's post right above yours. If you want to be taken seriously, check your blind partisan bias at the door. 59556[/snapback] I am sure that HopsGuy is the ultimate source for this type of info.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 If you want to portray yourself as unpartisan seriously, keep quiet! 59565[/snapback] Of course I have my own political opinions, but I always acknowledge facts for facts and admit when "my party" is wrong. Do you? have you EVER done so on the PPP board? Ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I am sure that HopsGuy is the ultimate source for this type of info.... 59567[/snapback] Quit with the one liners and just read what he actually typed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Spoken like a true out of touch white guy! 59561[/snapback] I know you hate white people and you hate men and you especially hate white men, but think about it: are these topics at all important in the context of this country's defense against terror? That was my point. And are you implying that Cheney hates blacks and old/handicapped people because he voted against an MLK holiday and against Meals on Wheels? Because I think the reasons for his Congressional votes go beyond such simpleton assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I know you hate white people and you hate men and you especially hate white men, but think about it: are these topics at all important in the context of this country's defense against terror? That was my point. And are you implying that Cheney hates blacks and old/handicapped people because he voted against an MLK holiday and against Meals on Wheels? Because I think the reasons for his Congressional votes go beyond such simpleton assumptions. 59587[/snapback] I suppose you say the exact same things about Kerry's votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Read HopsGuy's post right above yours. If you want to be taken seriously, check your blind partisan bias at the door. 59556[/snapback] Sorry, beig concerned about the direction that our country is taking (ie: the government sucking the tools of corporate America) has nothing to do with partisanship. This type of stuff is becoming all too common place, and Americans, like yourself, just seem to say, "yawn", who cares! It is one of the issues that concerns me more than any other, and sorry if it offends you, this current administration has done nothing to ease my mind about it. Criticize people like Micahael Moore all you want, there is plenty to criticize. But don't lose track of the fact that at the base of their attacks, lies a concern for what is happening to our country. It is increasingly becoming a big business. I don't let Clinton off the hook either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I suppose you say the exact same things about Kerry's votes. 59591[/snapback] It depends on which votes. Give me some specific examples and I'll tell you my stance. Keep in mind that I am generally against frivolous government waste and creeping government intervention unless the needs for such spending are strong/urgent/virtually irrefutable when public policy stats show a clear benefit with such programs. On national defense programs, I'll often give our Congressmen the benefit of the doubt because I'd rather be safe than sorry (example: surprise 9/11 attack). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Sorry, beig concerned about the direction that our country is taking (ie: the government sucking the tools of corporate America) has nothing to do with partisanship. This type of stuff is becoming all too common place, and Americans, like yourself, just seem to say, "yawn", who cares! It is one of the issues that concerns me more than any other, and sorry if it offends you, this current administration has done nothing to ease my mind about it. Criticize people like Micahael Moore all you want, there is plenty to criticize. But don't lose track of the fact that at the base of their attacks, lies a concern for what is happening to our country. It is increasingly becoming a big business. I don't let Clinton off the hook either. 59599[/snapback] Then you are going to be very disappointed with Kerry if he gets elected. But I'm glad to hear that you don't give Clinton and other Democrats a free pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I know you hate white people and you hate men and you especially hate white men, but think about it: are these topics at all important in the context of this country's defense against terror? That was my point. And are you implying that Cheney hates blacks and old/handicapped people because he voted against an MLK holiday and against Meals on Wheels? Because I think the reasons for his Congressional votes go beyond such simpleton assumptions. 59587[/snapback] I don't hate white people, I don't hate white males, I am one myself. I just find it funny when white guys, like yourself, assume that you know what is an important issue for everyone else. I have prefaced nearly every lengthy post I have made on the PPP board by saying it was an admittedly biased opionion. Funny that you defend Cheneys record of voting on these issues, saying they go beyond such simpleton assumptions as him being racist, or hating old people. I agree. Why not apply that logic when you condemn Kerry (or when Cheney condemns Kerry) for his voting record? You know why? Because it ruins your argument, and you have to admitt that there is always something more than meets the eye..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I was pretty disappointed with the answers of both candidates on the AIDS question. They had nothing to say about AIDS prevention in this country, just about how we can help Africans and people here who already have AIDS. And Edwards certainly could have brought up the abstinence only education that is failing our teens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Then you are going to be very disappointed with Kerry if he gets elected. But I'm glad to hear that you don't give Clinton and other Democrats a free pass. 59605[/snapback] Yeah, you are probably right about that, but I would at least like to keep things at a point where doing illeagal and unethical are still crimes, rather than having them approved by legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I don't hate white people, I don't hate white males, I am one myself. I just find it funny when white guys, like yourself, assume that you know what is an important issue for everyone else. I have prefaced nearly every post I have made on the PPP board by saying it was an admittedly biased opionion. Funny that you defend Cheneys record of voting on these issues, saying they go beyond such simpleton assumptions as him being racist, or hating old people. I agree. Why not apply that logic when you condemn Kerry (or when Cheney condemns Kerry) for his voting record? You know why? Because it ruins your argument, and you have to admitt that there is always something more than meets the eye..... 59607[/snapback] Do you honestly believe that Americans should weigh how Cheney voted on Meals on Wheels equally with how Kerry has voted on national defense for the past 20+ years? That was my point. You can have your bias on subjects - and I have mine - but I'm talking about disregarding obvious facts. Example: facts from independent sources debunking any Halliburton conspiracy. Several other posters in the thread have mentioned them, and instead of arguing them or their validity you spit out more one-liners. With Kerry's voting record, give me a few voting instances and I'll tell you my stance. How do you know that I don't agree with him on certain things? You've never asked me. I don't post on PPP that much, but I read it a lot. And I have to say that you are about as blind a partisan as is Captain America. In my limited posting experience here, I consider myself a libertarian Republican who has been more than willing to admit when my party is wrong. And FWIW in this mind-numbing debate, I'm 25%Colombian/25% Puerto Rican/50% Italian so I don't know if you can categorize me necessarily as a "white guy." I don't know, maybe you can? Who cares. I'm off to get some dinner. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Do you honestly believe that Americans should weigh how Cheney voted on Meals on Wheels equally with how Kerry has voted on national defense for the past 20+ years? That was my point. You can have your bias on subjects - and I have mine - but I'm talking about disregarding obvious facts. Example: facts from independent sources debunking any Halliburton conspiracy. Several other posters in the thread have mentioned them, and instead of arguing them or their validity you spit out more one-liners. With Kerry's voting record, give me a few voting instances and I'll tell you my stance. How do you know that I don't agree with him on certain things? You've never asked me. I don't post on PPP that much, but I read it a lot. And I have to say that you are about as blind a partisan as is Captain America. In my limited posting experience here, I consider myself a libertarian Republican who has been more than willing to admit when my party is wrong. And FWIW in this mind-numbing debate, I'm 25%Colombian/25% Puerto Rican/50% Italian so I don't know if you can categorize me necessarily as a "white guy." I don't know, maybe you can? Who cares. I'm off to get some dinner. Peace. 59623[/snapback] This is pointless, so we will just let it rest at that. I didn't see anyone in this thread give any evidence that says Haliburton has been cleared of all charges. In fact, in todays' USA TODAY, in a fact checking peice concening the debate, it says that there are still on going investigations from Cheneys' Haliburton days, concerning illeagal stashing of money overseas, and working with countries that were considered enemies of the United States. I apologize Kelso, for assuming too much about you, my point was that it is easy for you or me to brush off issues that are not important to us personally, it does not mean they are not important. I don't post on the PPP board all that much either, because it usually ends up being pointless. I never claimed to not be biased, but this is a political discussion board. Unless you don't have a thought in your head, or you are AD, it is impossible to discuss such things without a bias. I never have tried to hide that. I consider myself a moderate Democrat, so I am not prone to voting blindly Democrat. I would vote John McCain in a second, if he were running. I have reluctantly picked to vote for John Kerry, not because he inspires me, but, sadly, because he is the only other legitimate candidate who can defeat George Bush. I suffered 8 years with Bush as my governor in Texas, another 4 years with him as president, and personally I have seen enough to realize that he doesn't represent me at all.... paz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Well here's a little proof that, like GHWB, Cheney's an out-of-touch fossil. Check Your Facts If that rankles, then maybe he just made a mistake? But we don't allow for mistakes on this board. So, in that case, perhaps he's stupid or ill-informed? Or just an old fossil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Well here's a little proof that, like GHWB, Cheney's an out-of-touch fossil. Check Your Facts If that rankles, then maybe he just made a mistake? But we don't allow for mistakes on this board. So, in that case, perhaps he's stupid or ill-informed? Or just an old fossil. 59648[/snapback] Using your impecable rationale, stevestojan is a better VP candidate because he can maneuver the web better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 But your daughter never noticed how Edwards evaded answering his questions as well? You've obviously raised her well. 59159[/snapback] Could be a gender thingy....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Sorry, but the incorporation of America is a big issue for me, and a lot of other people. I am very interested in what the vice president would have to say. It is troubling that Cheney, and president Bush both seem to feel that they are beyond reproach, and it is equally troubling that so many conservatives see this stuff as "no big deal". I honestly think president Bush and vice-presidnet Cheney have braught hyperbolie and effusiveness to a new level, and so many of you seem to be fine with it.... 59549[/snapback] Don't let your bias get in the way of a debate on facts. But frankly I haven't a clue on what your post says. If I may restate, "I hate corporations. Can't explain why I hate corporations more than partnerships, limited liability companies, or trusts, but I do. But I would like to hear why the sitting president and vice president like corporations. Of course, no matter what they tell me, and even if everything they did is legal, I think it's bad because they like corporations." Did I get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 So you've only just figured that out? AD sits in the midst of his little spiderweb, in the dark literally and figuratively, and throws venom and stones. He offers no solutions. He has nothing postive to say about anything. And he has nothing nice to say, unless someone with an equally negative view of everything comes along. 59320[/snapback] I'm positive that you're an idiot and a hypocrite. Your post does a much better job of describing your "contribution" to this board over the last 2 years. Your "solution" is John Kerry. It's too bad the question is: Name the only Presidential Candidate the Democrats could offer up who has less going for him than George W. Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Don't let your bias get in the way of a debate on facts. But frankly I haven't a clue on what your post says. If I may restate, "I hate corporations. Can't explain why I hate corporations more than partnerships, limited liability companies, or trusts, but I do. But I would like to hear why the sitting president and vice president like corporations. Of course, no matter what they tell me, and even if everything they did is legal, I think it's bad because they like corporations." Did I get it? 59815[/snapback] Hey GG, I don't know what you do for a living, but in my 25 years in the work force, I have seen a continual lowering of the bar for American workers. We now work more hours, for fewer benefits, and pay. Yet corporate America gets wealthier all the time. When there is a recession, CEO's don't feel it, they pass it on down to the work force. Special interest groups and lobbyists for corporate America are influencing policies that affect us all. My entire point at the begining of this silly debate was that I would have liked to see the vice-president answer the questions/charges that Edwards put to him. He didn't and instead changed the topic, and accused Edwards of throwing a smoke screen, and then directed them to check it on a web-site (albeit the wrong web-site as it turns out). I thought it was a very lame reply. It is a debate. What is the point of having a debate if the participants just answer "just check the web-site". Sorry you can't understand that. You must be living the best of lives. I like your itnterpritation, because it seems to make you feel smart and funny having come up with it. But, my point was that I found Cheneys' effusiveness on the topic, for someone so assured of his innocence, to be rather odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hey GG, I don't know what you do for a living, but in my 25 years in the work force, I have seen a continual lowering of the bar for American workers. We now work more hours, for fewer benefits, and pay. Yet corporate America gets wealthier all the time. When there is a recession, CEO's don't feel it, they pass it on down to the work force. Special interest groups and lobbyists for corporate America are influencing policies that affect us all. My entire point at the begining of this silly debate was that I would have liked to see the vice-president answer the questions/charges that Edwards put to him. He didn't and instead changed the topic, and accused Edwards of throwing a smoke screen, and then directed them to check it on a web-site (albeit the wrong web-site as it turns out). I thought it was a very lame reply. It is a debate. What is the point of having a debate if the participants just answer "just check the web-site". Sorry you can't understand that. You must be living the best of lives. I like your itnterpritation, because it seems to make you feel smart and funny having come up with it. But, my point was that I found Cheneys' effusiveness on the topic, for someone so assured of his innocence, to be rather odd. 59927[/snapback] It's amazing that with more government (the largest corporation in the world, yet the only one the lefties actually trust) intervention that this downward spiral actually increases in speed. Apparently the two aren't mutually exclusive. We are remarkably similiar to England when they were colonizing the world and turning into a mercantile society. Now look at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hey GG, I don't know what you do for a living, but in my 25 years in the work force, I have seen a continual lowering of the bar for American workers. We now work more hours, for fewer benefits, and pay. Yet corporate America gets wealthier all the time. When there is a recession, CEO's don't feel it, they pass it on down to the work force. Special interest groups and lobbyists for corporate America are influencing policies that affect us all. My entire point at the begining of this silly debate was that I would have liked to see the vice-president answer the questions/charges that Edwards put to him. He didn't and instead changed the topic, and accused Edwards of throwing a smoke screen, and then directed them to check it on a web-site (albeit the wrong web-site as it turns out). I thought it was a very lame reply. It is a debate. What is the point of having a debate if the participants just answer "just check the web-site". Sorry you can't understand that. You must be living the best of lives. I like your itnterpritation, because it seems to make you feel smart and funny having come up with it. But, my point was that I found Cheneys' effusiveness on the topic, for someone so assured of his innocence, to be rather odd. 59927[/snapback] Who is "we" that is working more for less? Certainly no one that I know. My income has risen every year since I graduated from college. Our company has added jobs, given raises and bonuses the past four years. What is it that YOU do for a living? How has the 'evil corporate' world ruined your life? Maybe you should try to forget the silly soundbites and deal with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hey GG, I don't know what you do for a living, but in my 25 years in the work force, I have seen a continual lowering of the bar for American workers. We now work more hours, for fewer benefits, and pay. Yet corporate America gets wealthier all the time. When there is a recession, CEO's don't feel it, they pass it on down to the work force. Special interest groups and lobbyists for corporate America are influencing policies that affect us all. I don't think that I need to restate AD's & KD's points, as they're right on. I would like to know what standards you use to determine your POV. By any conceivable measure, US workers are better paid, more informed and have more benefits than they had 25 years ago. You can perpetuate the talking point myths all you want, but I'll stick with irrefutable data. The recesisonary swings in income and employment are a direct byproduct of an economic cycle. Your POV from a 25 year history in the work force strikes me as one who never had to make a difficult decision on employees during a downturn. My entire point at the begining of this silly debate was that I would have liked to see the vice-president answer the questions/charges that Edwards put to him. He didn't and instead changed the topic, and accused Edwards of throwing a smoke screen, and then directed them to check it on a web-site (albeit the wrong web-site as it turns out). I thought it was a very lame reply. It is a debate. What is the point of having a debate if the participants just answer "just check the web-site". Sorry you can't understand that. You must be living the best of lives. I like your itnterpritation, because it seems to make you feel smart and funny having come up with it. But, my point was that I found Cheneys' effusiveness on the topic, for someone so assured of his innocence, to be rather odd. 59927[/snapback] But that is the whole point. The charges are baseless, and Cheney knew that by elaborating on them would provide DEMs with what they need. It was the "when did you stop beating your wife?" question by the litigator that Cheney was wise to avoid. The bottom line is that no matter what the VP would have said would not be enough to sway your POV. How many people here pointed to facts that show there's no connection between HAL & Cheney and any illegal or nefarious activity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Who is "we" that is working more for less? Certainly no one that I know. My income has risen every year since I graduated from college. Our company has added jobs, given raises and bonuses the past four years. What is it that YOU do for a living? How has the 'evil corporate' world ruined your life? Maybe you should try to forget the silly soundbites and deal with reality. 60092[/snapback] At the present, I work for the University Of Texas, another huge corporation. In my 5 years here, staff has been cut by almost a third, pay raises have been minimal (the lowest allowed, across the board) and myself, and many of my co-workers are doing the jobs that three people used to handle. In addition, in the last two years, we are paying about 25% more for our health coverage, and no longer have dental or eye care coverage, unless we pay extra for it. The insurance we do have has so many limits on it (a $1000 cap on perscriptions per year! With the high cost of medicine, that is nothing. If you are on any sort of regular medication, that amount is easily tapped within 6 to 8 months. Also, the kicker, no coverage for allergy medicine, or related illnesses) Beyond that, wouldn't you like to be able to pick up a newspaper, or magazine, read a movie or record review, or hear some current news, and not have to wonder which conglomorate owns the publication (or television/radio station)? You cannot trust any sources these days. If you watched any post-vp debatge on the 24 hour newschannels, you heard "fact checkers" refuting what other "fact checkers" were reporting as truth. You are really gullable, and truly a lemming (or maybe too young to remember when things were different) if you can't see what is happening. Sorry, I also don't think it is right/fair, when chain stores (ie: Wal-mart, etc.) get tax breaks to move in to cities, to compete, and ultimately wipe out independantly owned businesses. It is happening everywhere. A recent study showed that locally owned businesses turn 80% of theit money into their local economy. Corporate chains only 33% Corporate America is slowly eroding our freedom of choice, and a lot of people (at leat those on this board) don't seem to give it a second thought, because it is becoming so common=place, we don't give it a second thought. Sorry if ideals sound like sound-bites to you KD, and I apologize that I don't have a web-site, or some clicked and dragged article to "prove I am right" for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 The bottom line is that no matter what the VP would have said would not be enough to sway your POV. How many people here pointed to facts that show there's no connection between HAL & Cheney and any illegal or nefarious activity? 60216[/snapback] My whole original point, as I heave restated for you now twice, is that it would have been nice to see the vice-president answer the question presented to him, rather than cop out. It may have been a good enough answer for you, but for me, and I sure there are others who feel the same way, it seemed like more of a dodge than an answer to a question. The way the candidates answer questions says a lot about them. As the admittedly biased viewer (a fact that I stated at the very outset of this whole silly thing) Cheney did nothing the other night to persuade me that he is not as full of crap as anyone else. The answer to your question: 0! Not a single person in this thread has provided anything but their opinion, under the pompous guise of fact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Who is "we" that is working more for less? Certainly no one that I know. My income has risen every year since I graduated from college. Our company has added jobs, given raises and bonuses the past four years. 60092[/snapback] Here's a big soundbite. I am interested to know who is in the circle of people you know. Certainly people who work in the manufacturing sector and in just about any union job have had to concede vital provisions of their contracts. My dad works for Niagara Mohawk as a lineman, an essential job that requires intense training and skills and safety procedures to ensure that you and I can type back and forth and our entire capitalist system can function. Yet they are in a constract dispute right now that will put my dad on a one-man crew with no one to back him up if he gets hurt. And he is going to lose about half of his salary due to a change in schedule, as he currently works a LOT of overtime -- sometimes 36 hour days -- making sure you and I have our power, particularly in the worst winter conditions. Workers like him have fought hard to make sure they are protected and then the parent company, National Grid (an English corporation), !@#$s them over without a second thought about the work they are doing. Republicans have in general fought against everything that helped keep my father's industry working for the people, and against every provision that kept these workers safe. Deregulation has run rampant in the utilities and it's hurting good people. Talk to people in the communications industries, too. Don't like that OmniCorp runs everything, all six TV stations in your area, two radio stations, two of the newspapers, and books all the concerts and charges whatever they want? That's the corporate world run unchecked. That's where the government needs to step in and regulate. Somewhere the system that values the dollar over the person has to collapse on itself. I am not a communist and not an anti-capitalist. But the government's job is to protect the people, not companies. W has shown his love lies with the latter. I honestly believe Edwards cares about people like my dad, and that's one reason his ticket has my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Don't like that OmniCorp runs everything, all six TV stations in your area, two radio stations, two of the newspapers, and books all the concerts and charges whatever they want? That's the corporate world run unchecked. That's where the government needs to step in and regulate. 60240[/snapback] Really? Consumers can't just turn off the television or not go to the concerts? I had no idea. On the rest of your post, every "important" job on the planet goes through evolution. It sounds like that's what is happening in this instance. The issues that are alluded to are a two way street. The government hasn't solved the problem, despite adding thousands of pages of regulations over the last 30 years. Most managerial types (myself included), would argue that the burdens of excess regulation has made it impossible to give the actual workers what they need to do their jobs. Instead, we have to hire numerous additional HR, accounting, safety, administrative types to handle the required government reporting and ensure complete compliance to every inane detail that has been pressed down on us. These are people who do not add to the bottom line, only to the company G&A (burden). The issue isn't as "cut and dried" as Democrat vs Republican. People keep wishing for a government solution without realizing they're already getting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts