narcimund 0 #76 October 9, 2004 QuoteABC News Poll. Oct. 8, 2004. N=515 registered voters nationwide who watched the second presidential debate. Respondents were initially interviewed Oct. 5-7. MoE ± 4.5 (for all registered voters). Fieldwork by TNS. "Who, in your opinion, won the debate?": Bush supporters say Bush: 84 Kerry: 1 Tie: 13 Kerry supporters say Bush: 2 Kerry: 85 Tie: 12 The ONLY information revealed by the poll is what side somebody was on before it started. The debate might as well not have happened. In other words, someone's claim that A won or B won even in their own opinion is approximately 98% meaningless. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #77 October 9, 2004 QuoteI was disappointed with Kerry's response to the question on taxpayer funding for abortion. Taxpayers don't get to choose what their $$ go for. SOme people object to capital punishment, some to gun control, some to nuclear weapons, some to welfare (both individual and corporate). They don't get to choose, why should abortion opponents get to choose? Why should government fund abortions? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #78 October 9, 2004 Quote I was disappointed with Kerry's response to the question on taxpayer funding for abortion. Taxpayers don't get to choose what their $$ go for. SOme people object to capital punishment, some to gun control, some to nuclear weapons, some to welfare (both individual and corporate). They don't get to choose, why should abortion opponents get to choose? John Kerry voted against a ban on partial birth abortions. There is no medical reason whatsoever that would justify a procedure such as this and at this time in the pregnancy. Even "life of the mother" wouldn't come into play. Usually, a baby at that time is fully capable of performing life functions on its own. Even if you agree with abortion at earlier stages, partial birth abortion is legalized murder, plain and simple. You're trying to compare it to other ethical dilemmas such as capital punishment; however, that doesn't justify partial birth abortion. My tax dollars should not go to funding this brutal and horrific procedure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #79 October 9, 2004 This isn't necessarily directed at you, Jimbo. Just making an observation on the debate. The President looked 100% better than the last time and handled himself very well. However, you've got to wonder, with all of his obviously well trained debating coaches, why they wouldn't be prepared for a question like the last one that was given directly to Bush. The one asking him to name 3 mistakes that he's made along with 3 successes. What the bloody hell!?? He's been asked that same question in other recent speeches and he didn't have anything prepared then. It caused him to stumble and look bad. This question was obviously designed for that very purpose. It was a trap, just like the last time, and a pretty pathetic one in my opinion. It served no other purpose other than to bash Bush. On the other hand and regardless of its intent, the President should have been prepared for it by now and I can't figure out why he was not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #80 October 9, 2004 Quote No, ums or ahhs required. Pay attention to when Bush starts his ums and ahhs and blank stares. They tend to come in on very specific topics that don't relate to anything connected to the war. It tends to fall more on topics within domestic policy and helping people - stem cell, jobs, environment, etc._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #81 October 9, 2004 It was easy to call Kerry the winner in the first one. I saw all but the first two questions. It's hard to say who won. Bush did good, a lot better than the first time. He was composed and watched his body language the entire time. He was better prepared on the debate on the war, but he also showed a lack of respect to the moderator when he talked over him on at least one or two occasions. Most of his responses were canned and often repeated, and didn't always answer the question asked. Bush also stuck to his catch phrases as an answer "clear skies" "no child behind" and pretending those were answers instead of giving the details asked for. And pretendin to be a President that is friendly to the environment was the best laugh I had that night. However, Kerry did a lot of the same - he didn't answer the questions, often repeated what he had said on a previous occasion. Kerry at one point had dominated with a couple of answers but then went on the defensive and it felt like he was playing catch up at times when he was going back two or three questions in a response. Bush did better than last time, kerry didn't do as good as the first time....but neither one of them did great. Pretty much a tie in my books._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #82 October 9, 2004 Quote QuoteI was disappointed with Kerry's response to the question on taxpayer funding for abortion. Taxpayers don't get to choose what their $$ go for. SOme people object to capital punishment, some to gun control, some to nuclear weapons, some to welfare (both individual and corporate). They don't get to choose, why should abortion opponents get to choose? Why should government fund abortions? - Jim Why should it fund anything not explicitly called for in the Constitution? Why should taxpayers who oppose capital punishment have to pay for executions when it's far cheaper to keep the criminals in jail for life? Why should I as a taxpayer have to support large corporations through corporate welfare? Inquiring minds want to know.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #83 October 9, 2004 QuoteWhy should taxpayers who oppose capital punishment have to pay for executions when it's far cheaper to keep the criminals in jail for life? We have a penal system, we have to pay for it somehow. QuoteWhy should I as a taxpayer have to support large corporations through corporate welfare? When the alternative to corporate welfare is having companies lay off tens of thousands of people, I think that corporate welfare might be a good, short term fix. The examples above contribute, on some level, to the well being of our society. I don't understand how federally funding abortions could do the same. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #84 October 10, 2004 Quote Why should taxpayers who oppose capital punishment have to pay for executions when it's far cheaper to keep the criminals in jail for life? How can it possibly be cheaper? Wayne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #85 October 10, 2004 The average appeal takes years and adds cost since its typically publicly funded on both sides. With capitial punishment cases there are built in automatic appeals that the defendent can't even wave. All the same time you are paying to house them. You end up paying a lot more for some one on death row since they are now in a seperate wing with special personal just for them. I can't remember where but I seem to remember a study from a few years back that figured the break even cost at greater then 15 years for the cost of housing to total to higher then the cost of executing them. It might be cheaper in the long term to execute them, but in terms of running a prision like a business, a return on investment that takes 15 years to reach would be hard to justify.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #86 October 10, 2004 Not that it should ever be used as a birth control method, but some people often comment that allowing families that are already on welfare to continue to get more welfare just since they have additionals kids is a waste of money. $200 for an abortion vs $3500 (made up number) a year in Welfare paid to them for a child that they might not have wanted in the first place. If you could save that $3500 or what ever and put it into manditory IUD's for those on Welfare... everyone wins and more money is freed up for a reduction in taxes.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #87 October 10, 2004 QuoteIf you could save that $3500 or what ever and put it into manditory IUD's for those on Welfare... everyone wins and more money is freed up for a reduction in taxes. My God! You didn't just say that, did you? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #88 October 10, 2004 Quote QuoteIf you could save that $3500 or what ever and put it into manditory IUD's for those on Welfare... everyone wins and more money is freed up for a reduction in taxes. My God! You didn't just say that, did you? - Jim More money is freed up to spend on some other govt. program. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #89 October 10, 2004 Hmmmm, did he have help? Looks like being wired?--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #90 October 10, 2004 QuoteHmmmm, did he have help? Looks like being wired? It's his GPS locator, so he doesn't get lost.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #91 October 10, 2004 QuoteQuote Why should taxpayers who oppose capital punishment have to pay for executions when it's far cheaper to keep the criminals in jail for life? How can it possibly be cheaper? Wayne Been asleep?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #92 October 10, 2004 Quote QuoteWhy should taxpayers who oppose capital punishment have to pay for executions when it's far cheaper to keep the criminals in jail for life? We have a penal system, we have to pay for it somehow. QuoteWhy should I as a taxpayer have to support large corporations through corporate welfare? When the alternative to corporate welfare is having companies lay off tens of thousands of people, I think that corporate welfare might be a good, short term fix. The examples above contribute, on some level, to the well being of our society. I don't understand how federally funding abortions could do the same. - Jim The penal system doesn't have to include executions at GREAT expense to the taxpayer. All other "western" nations have abolished capital punishment. Corporate welfare keeps bad or inefficient companies afloat which, in the greater scheme of things, punishes good, efficient companies. In the short, medium and long term this is bad. I simply don't see funding abortions for poor women who qualify in any different light that any other form of discretionary government spending. Some people are bound to be offended, but so what?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #93 October 10, 2004 Why not? Are not lots of people argueing on here that those on Welfare have more kids just to get more money and ensure that they can stay in the system longer since they are lazy? Is'nt the arguement if your too poor to take care of the kids you have what are you doing having more kids? Or does that only apply to kids that get ill and the parents can't afford the insurance needed to get them proper medical care? I'm not arguing for abortions, but having unwanted kids in the first place places additional strain on the social services system.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #94 October 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Why should taxpayers who oppose capital punishment have to pay for executions when it's far cheaper to keep the criminals in jail for life? How can it possibly be cheaper? Wayne Been asleep? Was that called for? Wayne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #95 October 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Why should taxpayers who oppose capital punishment have to pay for executions when it's far cheaper to keep the criminals in jail for life? How can it possibly be cheaper? Wayne Been asleep? Was that called for? Wayne Study after study for maybe 30 years or more has come to the conclusion that capital punshment is not cost effective. How come you missed all of them?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #96 October 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Why should taxpayers who oppose capital punishment have to pay for executions when it's far cheaper to keep the criminals in jail for life? How can it possibly be cheaper? Wayne Been asleep? Was that called for? Wayne Study after study for maybe 30 years or more has come to the conclusion that capital punshment is not cost effective. How come you missed all of them? My point is that PhreeZone had answered my question perfectly well, yet you felt the need to put in your little dig which added nothing of substance. Wayne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #97 October 10, 2004 QuoteStudy after study for maybe 30 years or more has come to the conclusion that capital punshment is not cost effective. How come you missed all of them? I don't care what study you show me... Killing someone with Lethal Injection or even the Electric Chair CANNOT be more expensive than feeding, taking care of medically and housing a murderer on Death Row... NO FUCKING WAY.... Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #98 October 10, 2004 It's not the act of killing the person that is more expensive, it's the near endless appeals before the actual sentance is carried out.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #99 October 10, 2004 QuoteIt's not the act of killing the person that is more expensive, it's the near endless appeals before the actual sentance is carried out. And before anyone jumps in to say that there are too many appeals, take a look at the record in Illinois, where several nmates have been finally exonerated after spending more than 20 years on death row.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #100 October 10, 2004 QuoteMy point is that PhreeZone had answered my question perfectly well, But you asked the question of me, not PhreeZ, so I am perfectly justified in replying. "If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" Harry S. Truman Applies nicely to Speakers Corner.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
