storm1977

Do you actually know the difference between a Lt. Colonel and a Lt. Governor? That's 2 posts in which you made the same error. I do ... sorry for the delay reaction it had been a couple days. I wrote both post rather quickly before your post was out and did not see the error. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Because we're all Americans and we all deserve to be healthy if possible and not have our basic healthcare limited by our income. The gov't is the single largest purchaser of medicine. They should use that power to bargain with the pharma companies for better pricing instead of arbitrarily increasing drug expenditures wholesale while allowing the drug companies to raise prices by the same amount or more. Also true. Tort reform is needed across the board. 1. The government is specifically prohibited from bargaining with the drug companies under Bush's Medicare act. 2. Bush withheld the cost of the Medicare act from Congress until after the vote. 3. US drug companies are not hurting for profits. In fact they have among the highest profit margins of any US industry. Their profits significantly exceed their research expenditures. They are whining "wolf" when they tell us about how much they have to charge for drugs to pay for the research. 4. A sizeable fraction of the drug R&D is in fact paid for by the government anyway. I love how you make these statements of "Fact" with nothing there to vouch for your claim. The truth is it cost about 1Billion dollars and about 10 yrs to get a new drug to market. How do you make that money back? (See link below) Also, this is capitalism.... There is no monopoly here.... Other companies and countries will get in the fray and prices will drop. Or we could get the government involved and they can overpay, jackup cost, and raise taxes so we all get free drugs.... http://www.forbes.com/sciencesandmedicine/2004/05/28/cz_kd_0528outsourcing.html ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Yes kallen... I think Greenspan is an idiot who over thinks and is slow to react!!!! It surprises me he still has his job!!!. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

What do you mean???? If you look at the Intrest rates of the period between 2000 and say 2010. What do you think they will have done over that stretch of time? I will guess they will be down. Even if the rates climb slightly, during that 10 year period rates will have fallen. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Check this out!!! http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/02/eveningnews/consumer/main610102.shtml His cost went from 23K/year to 84K/year just for malpractice insurance during a 3 year period!!!!!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Insurance for Malpractice in parts of California are as high as $100,000 a year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How do you expect a doctor fresh out of school with a wife and a couple kids and 200K in student loans +100K in insurance a year to make money? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

You know Kallend... I don't always have to follow the pack It may surprize you, but I am Pro-Choice!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Defending the Bush Deficits It’s not hard to do if you look at the data. By Aman Verjee "Since President Bush took office in 2000, the economy has gone through at least three major shocks that were not of his making: a major terrorist attack that damped consumer confidence; the depression in business spending that followed the bursting of the stock market bubble; and a series of accounting scandals that afflicted some of the largest and most visible corporations in the United States. Yet, the U.S. economy has outperformed that of every other G7 country since 2001. Today, the unemployment rate is at 5.4 percent, where it was in 1996 when Bill Clinton was re-elected. Clinton proclaimed in his State of the Union speech that year that the “economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.” In the last three quarters, since the 2003 tax cuts were enacted, the U.S. economy has been growing at a 5.4 percent annualized pace, which is the fastest clip we’ve experienced since 1984. This remarkable record on the economy owes much to the pro-growth policies of the Bush administration. By reducing the tax code’s inherent penalties on work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship, the administration has kept us out of a prolonged recession. Yet, critics of President Bush’s fiscal policies have argued that today’s record federal deficit, which will reach $445 billion in 2004, will cause long-term economic growth to flounder by pushing interest rates higher. Like Chicken Little, who caviled because she mistook a tumbling acorn for a crashing sky, President Bush’s critics are unjustified when they foretell of an impending economic doom. Alarmists who worry about the historical heights to which deficits have climbed need to review the historical data for some context. At the end of 2001, the federal debt held by the public of the United States stood at 33 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. That was the lowest it had been in 18 years. At the end of 2003, federal debt stood at 36 percent of GDP. It is currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office to reach 40 percent of GDP by 2005 before it begins to decline again. By historical and international standards, these levels of debt are very modest. For instance, the debt burdens of Germany and France are over 60 percent of GDP; in Japan, debt is almost 150 percent of GDP. In the United States, there have been 24 years since 1939 when the federal debt was below 36 percent of GDP. In 41 years, the debt has been higher. The president’s critics might suggest that economic growth should have been better in the low-debt years than in the high-debt years, but in fact, real GDP growth averaged 4.44 percent in the high-debt years and just 3.14 percent in the low-debt years. To some extent, this divergence in growth rates can be tied to whether or not the country was at war. During war years, debt piled up quickly and economic growth was relatively robust. But the story is the same over a more restricted time horizon. Indeed, we can look only at the years since 1963, which is when the debt fell to present-day levels for the first time since WWII. Since then, public debt fell to a low of 24 percent in 1974, rose to a high of 50 percent in 1993, and fell back to 33 percent in 2001. Economic growth during this period was higher in the relatively high-debt years, averaging 3.47 percent versus 2.59 percent. Unemployment was also lower in the high-debt years, averaging 5.65 percent as opposed to 6.43 percent in the low-debt years. And consumer price inflation was almost three-times higher in the low-debt years than in the high-debt years — 7.6 percent to 3.0 percent. Looking back at American history, it is apparent that economic prosperity can continue even if the federal government maintains a debt burden that is much higher than it is today as a percentage of GDP. Moreover, large budget deficits have never been a cause of — nor have they even been correlated with — the high interest rates or slow economic growth that deficit hawks predict. For instance, in the late 1940s and 1950s, the Truman and Eisenhower administrations practiced fiscal restraint, keeping taxes high (the top rate was over 90 percent) and paying down the federal debt. The result: four recessions between 1948 and 1961. Contrary to the expectations set by President Bush’s critics, real interest rates actually rose slightly during this period of fiscal restraint; the real, inflation-adjusted 10-year government bond yield edged up from 170 basis points in 1953 (when the 10-year was first issued) to 280 basis points in 1961. In the 1960s, the federal government ran modest deficits while cutting taxes. In the 1980s, the federal government ran much larger deficits, while cutting taxes sharply and increasing spending. In both periods, economic growth was robust. In the 1960s, interest rates fell slightly; throughout the 1980s, they dropped dramatically, which is exactly the opposite of what the deficit Chicken Littles would predict. The lesson is clear: Economic prosperity can continue even if the federal government never balances its budget. The greater threats to prosperity are high levels of taxation and regulatory barriers to growth. President Bush deserves our gratitude for having steered a fiscal course that has kept the economy on track." ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

This picture says it all. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

No, I don't. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Touche. That was good. But seriously, he's on the list because he gave to Muslim charities, some of which have (allegedly) been linked to suicide bombings. I think the no-fly list should be for those who present a security risk. Giving your money away is the same as expressing your first amendment right of freedom of association (and speech); no really a security risk. I'm pretty conservative, but I will agree that Ashcroft is a little over the line. I disagree... giving money away is not freedom of speech.. If I give money away to a hit man who kills you, I am in deep poo. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Oh, here is more on your Lt. Col... ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Kallend .... Why should the Lt Col have any credibility now???? He has already admitted to lying. He is also a financial contributer to the DNC. Also... Give me a link to the DoD documentation this is consistent with. (Back it up please) ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

hmmmm.... not many replies??? DING DING it's over ..... Kerry is down for the count. And now there is possible new of a connection between The Kerry Campaign and the infamous CBS story.... Oh no ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Wendy, I disagree. CBS acted very poorly in the aftermath of this story breaking. In fact Rather himself came out on 2 seperate occasions and said The info and documents are real. That is unethical. If you are to be in the "NEWS" business there are certain ethics which must be followed in order for you to retain your credibility. Upon the questioning of their authenticity CBS should have stated why they felt they were credible and then released all info to an independant party to investigate their validity. Instead CBS initiall refused and Rather came across as an arrogant Biased reporter in the Kerry Camp. BAD MOVE!!! CBS who was at the bottom of the pile for ratings just took a gamble and knocked themselves even further down. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I was going to make the same comment, but I let it go....LOL. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

In an even better story... At UNC's school of journalism Jayon Blair was the guest speaker for the AT Wistin Salam Unv. To talk to blacks about Journalism and ethics.... WTF--- Why should this guy be paid anything to talk even if he is bad mouthing himself? This guy is saying.... Lie and Cheat, it worked for me!!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

No, I am not totally against free elections in Iraq in the coming years. This is what I would propose if I was in charge. Have an elections where the canidates were chosen by the occupying forces. The canidates would have to represent the different groups in Iraq (example ...Suni's, kurds etc....) Now, the occupying force would select these people bacause we would not want radicals voted in in the early stages of governmental development. We would need to have a group of moderate canidates representing the diverse culture of Iraq. After 5-10yrs of a relitively stable government you slowly release them full sovereignty. They should still have elections monitored by outside parties for several years to follow. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Com'on... Not before the regan era?? That was only includes 4 presidents. That isn't even 10% of the presidential history of this country. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

so what happens???? Dead lock? A repeat of the 2000 election??? God I hope not. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I beg to differ. I think these things do sway the election in some way. The way I see it, Bill you know how you will vote and I know how I will vote. It is the ones who don't know whate they are doing yet. These fence sitters are typically moderate, and typically they get sick of the mud slinging. I really do believe mud slinging on both sides tends to help the opposition. People just get tired of hearing it. THey want to hear about policy not history. And, in this election, it will be the fence sitters who determine the outcome of this election. Think about it, if you are on the fence in your decision for president, what do you want to hear to help you decide? Dirt dug up from the past? or A canidates position on important topics? If a canidate is spending his/her time on throwing mud, they can't be spending as much time on the real topics at hand. This goes for both parties. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Hmmm. You could almost replace "Bush" for "Putin" in that sentence and not have it lose any veracity. Really... If you are going to make a statement like that then BACK it UP!!!!! Where and when has Pres Bush taken the power to vote away from the people and instead put his own people in place of Senators and Represenitives????? PLEASE GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE.... The statement you made is about as mature and intelligent as comparing Hitler to bush. It really helps your argument. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I never said every country has to be like america... Where did I say that???? Canada and most of Europe are socialists ... So what. I don't happen to agree with that ideology, and hope that never happens to america, but they can do what they want. However, european socialist nations still give a lot of power to the people, and still allow them to vote for their officials. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

As to the Russian vote question ...YES. If the people voted for a authoritarian Government give it to them. Iraq.... No. Currently we are in iraq, and we now have a say in the governmental development of that nation. We will probably have a role in that nation for many years to come. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

What's wrong with that????? Do you not see what is going on? Based on what I have read, Putin is taking the voting power away from the public and instead appointing officials which favor his party to elected positions. Also, he is intentioally keeping info from the media local and global on the number of people killed in recent attacks etc..... How can you say " If Russian society wants communism, then what's the problem?" When no one knows what Russian society wants if thay are not allowed to vote for what or who they want? Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty