Bush is starting to pull away.

[Luzap]

One National Network showed it's map of electoral votes: Bush in red (of course), Gore in Blue, Undecideds in yellow (yellow?).

At first glance, the entire country looked red. There were three or four blue states (California nor Florida were among of them) and a small number of undecided states.

The Senate will remain in Republican control (nobody argues this), and the GOP may lose seats in the House. Most prognosticators are predicting that the republican’s majority there will be reduced to only 4 or 5 seats.

This could be the first time in many of our lives (fifty years) that Republicans have held the majority in Congress as well as holding the Presidency. The Democrats have enjoyed this situation during many of those years and we have huge deficits, poverty, a divided nation (race and gender), violence, and poor education to show for it.

Luz
what of the future???...

[Luzap]

The next 10 to 20 years will bring us unparalleled prosperity as we move outward from our planet and begin harvesting Solar System resources. Poverty in third world countries will vanish as Energy becomes as cheap as water. There will be no more fighting about natural resources because they will be abundant and cheap. Society will not be able to afford to leave anybody behind as opportunities and the skilled positions needed will far outnumber the amount of people to fill them. Pollution will be addressed as much of our heavy industry is moved off planet and the natural evolution of the Earth to a garden state commences.

We have been held back from this future for far too long by short sighted, controlling politicians that don't have the foresight, or the faith in humanity, to visualize this future. The burdens of huge government and over-taxation are shackles that impede our progress, and the fear peddling that politicians use to control the populous have poisoned our trust in each other.

It is time to change the prevailing thought in Washington. It is time to break the chains that bind us to short sighted thinking, and realize that government (i.e.: politicians) just need to get out of the way.

Such is the philosophical base of the current Republican Party. The Democrat Party vision does not extend this far.

We can only rid ourselves of the well intentioned (yet overbearing and smothering), short sighted, elitist protections of government control by turning out in large numbers at the polls and voting Republican in all National races. After fifty years, it's time to embrace our future and stop hiding from it.

Luz
vote republican...<BR>

[KCTitus]

Umm, I'm guessing about 312.

http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Spott]

I don't think any political party is going to get rid of poverty in 3rd world countries. What are they going to do, give everyone of them a job at the oil rigs?

------------------
It looks I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue!

[ChiTown]

Luz-

SSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

We don't want to wake up the liberals. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by ChiTown (edited 11-01-2000).]

[KC Jones]

Luz,

You sound as bad as the soicalists who think socialism will cure all the worlds ills. The repblican party is not really a 'get government out of our way, let the market rule' party. You could make that case if the Libertarian party won, but these are the republicans you're talking about. The republicans will change the face of government, but only modestly. We will still have a high level of income tax, it just might not be progressive. We will still carry on an expensive and unwinnable war against drugs. We will still have medicare and maybe even some sort of prescription drug plan. We will still have social security. The inheritance tax might get dropped but more likely will just get reformed. The greatest change will be the supreme court appointments.

I hate to take the wind out of your sails, but this election is not the panacea you're promising.

[This message has been edited by KC Jones (edited 11-01-2000).]

[KC Jones]

excuse the double post that was here.

[This message has been edited by KC Jones (edited 11-01-2000).]

[TEX]

This is SOOOO FUNNY!
Maybe Bush can pull so far ahead that he'll fall off a cliff or something!

KC Jones, excellent comments! It will be a case of the "Emperior has no clothes". Things will be about the same, but not to Republicans - everything will be vastly improved - until it's time to view the "progress" before the next ellection.

[Gaz]

I must confess that the thought of a Republican Congress and Republican President does not fill me with joy. I am generally opposed to the neo-socialist programs of the Democrats, but I am no better served by the moralistic legislation of the Republicans.

The Democrats are far too eager to get into my wallet. The Republicans are far too eager to get into my bedroom. I want neither group in either place.

Still, if forced to choose the lesser of two evils, it would be Bush with a solidly Republican Congress over Gore with a solidly Democratic Congress. I will have to depend on the Democrats in Congress [can you say filibuster?] and the Supreme Court to stop the more intrusive measures the Republicans try to foist off on me in the name of "family values."

Make no mistake, a Gore Presidency is totally unacceptable, but a Bush Presidency with a majority in Congress is only slightly less unpleasant.

xoxo~
gaz
between the rock and the hard place

<BR>

[Luzap]

mizzou5,

I beg the difference.

As our own technology increases and we start harvesting Solar System resources, cheap energy will be one of the by-products.

What do you think would happen if the dictators in the Middle East no longer held the keys to prosperity (their wealth and power) over their people's heads?

Third world countries are typically poor because a) corruption, and b) a few control the wealth derived from natural resources.

What if natural resources were no longer the basis for wealth?

Do not take this lightly. This is a future that will come to pass, the only question is do we embrace it and start down that path now, or do we fear it and hold ourselves back?

Luz
let yourself dream a little...

[ChiTown]

Damn it Luz, I told you!

KCTitus - I think 500

[bkkcoh]

Here is a site my friend pointed me to, check it out.
http://realclearpolitics.com/




------------------
bk

[Chief Henry]

Any of you good posters from the state of Mo have any idea what the polls are showing for the "show me state" ???

The electorial votes from MO. are crucial
if you ask me, specifically if Gore takes
Florida. Even though the polls show Gore
ahead in Florida, we have all the military personel who vote absontee. Many of them
have residents in Florida. I'm counting
on the absontee votes in Florida to come thru. Pennsyvania is looking good for the
RIGHT team this year .

------------------
Chiefs Rock

[Luzap]

KC Jones,

I thought I clearly stated that we were talking about developments beginning and occuring over the next 10 to 20 years... yes, I did say that.

Gaz, the Republican party has many faults. The real battles will only begin in January of next year when their elected officials take office. That will be when registered Republicans can start holding such elected officials to their collective word, and begin moulding (under the framework of a joint philosophy) the party to these ends.

This is the philosophy of the current Republican Party (getting gov't out of our way) and there is no reason that any one faction of the party should dominate the other (regardless of media propaganda). What example would you give of their envolvement in your bedroom?

Luz
curious...

[Chief Henry]

Any of you good posters from the state of Mo have any idea what the polls are showing for the "show me state" ???

The electorial votes from MO. are crucial
if you ask me, specifically if Gore takes
Florida. Even though the polls show Gore
ahead in Florida, we have all the military personel who vote absontee. Many of them
have residents in Florida. I'm counting
on the absontee votes in Florida to come thru. Pennsyvania is looking good for the
RIGHT team this year .

------------------
Chiefs Rock

[Luzap]

As of last night, Bush held a slight edge in Missouri.

Luz
and was down in Florida...

[Donkey Drew]

"The Democrats have enjoyed this situation during many of those years and we have huge deficits, poverty, a divided nation (race and gender), violence, and poor education to show for it."

LOL!!!

Aint it hell to be an American?

Nothing like some good old fashioned hyperpartisan propoganda to shake those morning cobwebs loose.

Did I say, LOL!!!

[mlyonsd]

If Bush loses Florida I don't see him winning the electorate.

I heard something on the radio this morning that there is starting to be a push for a constitutional ammendment eliminating the electoral college.

This is something that needs to happen. The electoral college is one of the few things still in the constitution that we as a nation have outgrown.

[Donkey Drew]

oops

[This message has been edited by Donkey Drew (edited 11-01-2000).]

[Donkey Drew]

Zap:

I think you left out the part about Democrats inventing pedophilia and perfecting world hunger...

[bkkcoh]

Here is a site that has polls from the key states.
http://realclearpolitics.com/Polls/polls-Critical_States.html



------------------
bk

[Gaz]

Drew-

The failure of the socialist state is pretty clear. And the division between classes in America is a major tool in the Democratic drive for votes. I do not love the Republicans, but the Democrats had control for years and years and the current state of affairs rightly lies stinking at their feet.

xoxo~
gaz
dislikes both parties equally.<BR>

[MrBlond]

Luz,

I enjoyed your post. It was refreshing to hear someone ponder the possiblities instead of lamenting on the "Lesser of two evils". As a Rush Republican, I agree that this election (with the state of the supreme court) may be the most important election ever.

[Gaz]

Luz-

"My bedroom" is my metaphor for the Republican party's infatuation with my moral choices. When they got control of Congress [as a result of the public's disgust with Clinton], they concerned themselves with "family values" issues instead of doing the job they were sent there for: reducing the size of government. If the Republicans quit worrying about my moral choices and started shrinking government for real, they could have me. As long as drugs and abortion are major planks in their platform, they do not deserve my support.

xoxo~
gaz
would like to to support a party that can actually win.<BR>

[Gaz]

Luz-

"My bedroom" is my metaphor for the Republican party's infatuation with my moral choices. When they got control of Congress [as a result of the public's disgust with Clinton], they concerned themselves with "family values" issues instead of doing the job they were sent there for: reducing the size of government. If the Republicans quit worrying about my moral choices and started shrinking government for real, they could have me. As long as drugs and abortion are major planks in their platform, they do not deserve my support.

xoxo~
gaz
would like to to support a party that can actually win.<BR>

[Donkey Drew]

Gaz:

Yes, I can see how the GOP and their politics of destruction, their paranoia over affirmative action and multi-culturalism, their continuous assualt on the rights of women, and their self righteous propogation of state sponsored christianity wouldn't have anything to do with a divided, tense, distrustful nation. Thier shameless promotion of me first social darwinism certainly hasn't contributed to the social divide.

Republicans have held the White House for 3/4ths of my life, and currently dominate the Supreme Court, but there simply isn't any way they bear any responsibility for any societal ills.

Did I say, ROTFLMFAOLAFH?

[MrBlond]

What does "Politics of Destruction" mean? Generic labels are easy to disagree with. I am a staunch Republican and can say without qualification that I for one am against "Politics of Destruction". Mark me down as against "Politics of Exclusivism" and "Politics of Divisiness" and "Politics of Hate" and "Politics of Bad Thingisms" as well.

[Clint in Wichita]

If Bush wins, and it looks like he will, I will begin noting the taxes taken out of my paycheck each and every payday. I will be anxiously waiting for my tax cut.

I will probably post a new topic each payday like "Payday #1 - No tax break".

We'll see how long it takes.

[KCTitus]

Like I said Clint, wait for the inaguration speech, W is going to address your need for an increased Paycheck.

As an aside, I could decrease the amount of taxes taken from your check and I'm not even going to be an elected official. *gasp*--wanna know how?

[Donkey Drew]

Mr Blond:

Some people might start to define politics of destruction as an eight year, 50 million dollar Witchhunt that was so based in fact its only finding ended up being the Lewinsky accident. Some might continue to define it as references to presidential body counts, and unsubstantiated rape allegations, and the payment of people like Paula Jones to attempt to embarrass the President of the United States. Some might stretch the definition to declaring open season on the President's family and friends and the gridlocking of Congress out of spite.

There's a start to the definition of politics of destruction.

[NaptownChief]

Clint,

Even if you don't see an imediate cut, at least you won't have to fear further increases...

[NaptownChief]

Clint,

Even if you don't see an imediate cut, at least you won't have to fear further increases...

[MrBlond]

Clint,
If Gore wins, and this looks nip and tuck, I will begin to look for the environment to magically improve. I will probably post something like: Day #1 No Death by Greenhouse Gases yet.

[mlyonsd]

I'm a conservative that doesn't want a tax cut initially.

I'd like to see a smaller government philosophy along with tax revenue surplus going directly to the national debt.

When the debt is eliminated that's when I want my tax cut.

[DiscoJones]

LOL! Looks like someone has been reading a little too much L. Ron Hubbard. We can't even hit Mars with a hunk of junk probe and we're expected to have a pipeline running in the next 10-20 years. LOL some more! We haven't even been back to the moon and it's been 30 years! What are these Solar System resources? If you're going to use something rather than oil, natural gas or coal you might want to start working on that now, here on Earth.

On the election note, I've already resigned myself to voting for Nader (wasted vote or not), but now you guys have given me reason enough to vote right down the Democratic line for congressional candidates.

The thought of a GOP White House and Congress is enough to make me physically ill.

[MrBlond]

Drew,
In your opinion, Does President Clinton share ANY responsibility in your mentioned "Politics of Destruction"? ie Lying under oath to the Reno appointed Independent Council.

[Donkey Drew]

Blonde:

There's no doubt that Clinton falls short in many categories, but I don't see any Democrats characterizing the current state of affairs as some Democratic induced waste land.

Yes, Clinton did eventually fall into the GOP trap. That still doesn't justify the previous 6 year witch hunt. Lewinsky probably saved the GOPs image for the time being. Without her, the disdain for GOP tactics would be intense right now. I take comfort in the fact that the Lewinsky only delayed the inevitable, which is a national realization that the GOP has lost total sight of the ball. Somewhere along the line, the GOP decided that ideology for the sake of ideology was far more important than being constructive. The GOP has declared politics a blood sport, and it'll come back an bite them on the collective *** eventually.

[Luzap]

It seems that the liberals among us don't have the vision to see the future. I believe I said that was the case didn't I? Yes I did (thank you for confirming it).

I have no desire nor sufficient space to discuss physics, but I will drop a couple of examples of why near earth orbit manufacturing and energy production, as well as harvesting of Solar System resources can be so profound (and will be inevitible)...

Question: What halted our utilization of the cleanest, never ending source of energy ever discovered, fission reactors?
Answer: Environmental and safety concerns. These are not problems in orbit.

It is estimated that one medium sized nickle-iron asteroid (from the Asteroid Belt) could supply the entire world's needs for iron ~ for ten years (not to mention the other 'trace' elements of copper, magneesium, uranium, gold, etc.). It should also be noted that it costs next to nothing to 'drop' something to the bottom of a gravity well.

In addition, manufacturing of ceramics, pharmaceuticals, certain electronics, and many chemical compounds are all done more efficiently and are far less costly in a vacuum. Can anybody think of a natural vacuum that might be 'laying around' handy?

The potential gains from Solar System exploration are enormous. If government will get out of our way and leave us the resources to invest in such futures (by not taxing them away), we will attain it much sooner.

Luz
a dream shared becomes a vision...

[MrBlond]

Drew,

Dems and Repubs share this "Win at all cost" mentality. Look no further than the school lunch debate. As a Republican I do not want to starve children. As for falling for a Republican "Trap", All President Clinton was asked was for the truth. It may not have been a tastful question, but the President of the United States still should have the charactor to answer truthfully or the good sense to decline to answer.

[MrBlond]

Drew,

As for Dems charactorizing the current state of affairs...Of course they don't they have been in control of the White House for 8 years. In 92 I remember a little finger pointing going the other way.

[Donkey Drew]

Blond:

The GOP was so incensed and bitter when Clinton took office that they made it their singular ambition to destroy the man's character from day one. Now, via Lewinsky, the perception exists that all this was justified. The fact is, Mother Theresa would have folded under the same scrutiny and the same willingness to run with any allegation no matter how baseless it was. The sad thing is, is all these GOPers are going to be sitting around, scratching their heads and wondering what the hell went wrong when the next Republican President is similarly destroyed. But hey-- you set the precedent, you ought to live it.

[MrBlond]

Luz,

Why do I enjoy you view of the future and solutions to real problems more that the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States and current Vice-President Gore's enviromental "Sky is falling" retoric and strong arm fund-raising? I think I read a quote from Senator Gore that in ten years, the oceans would be unlivable for a million species and the drinking water would be unusable and the polar ice caps would melt due to green house gases flooding hundreds of cities, killing children no doubt. If memory serves this was stated about 20 years ago. Oh, I remember the current administration must have saved the environment while doing such a sterling job of stomping out terrorism and solving the Middle East puzzle. All the while inventing the internet and dealing with the vast right wing conspiricy.

[KCTitus]

I have to laugh at Drew's assertions. It's so mired in short term thinking it's practically ludicrous.

Siller than the thought that the GOP actually 'drove' these issues to the forefront is the notion that the GOP plotted to 'destroy' Clintons character.

If one remembers the 1992 campaign the two refrains were 'Character doesnt matter' and 'It's the economy...stupid'. These 'character' issues were dogging Clinton before he became president. Maybe Drew would like to assert that it was a GOP plot to destroy his character before he became president as well.

Im positive the Republicans dont hold a monopoly on the so called 'Politics of Destruction'. As a matter of fact, they are mere amateurs compared to some of the pit bulls like Carville and Blumenthal.

[MrBlond]

Drew,

Responsiblity.

[Luzap]

Gaz,

I have tremendous respect and much agreement with your political views. I do, however, have a different take on the powerbase of the Republican Party.

The 'Religious Right' is a powerful faction of the Republican Party. This faction has been much maligned and literally defined in the eyes of many by the left and the media. The Christian element of the Party is, however, much larger than just the 'Religious Right'. This is an important distinction.

IMO, most Christian 'activism' is a result of losing long held rights to the liberals. Basic things like the ability to live in a community that espouses Christian views ~ including schools that support Christian values. Only a very small percentage of these people are concerned with trying to force anyone else to live their lives in the same manner.

I think the press and the liberals have a vested interest in making Americans believe that the Republican Party wants to legislate 'bedroom values'. This is not, nor ever has been, the platform or goal of the Republican Party. At most, the Republican Party has advocated the return of these issues to the State or Local level.

I have no fear of the Republican Party suddenly making a left turn venturing into 'bedroom territory'. There is very, very little support or enthusiasm for this.

Luz
the only legitimate difference between libertarians and republicans should be drugs and immigration ~ and i look forward to that debate...<P>

[KC Jones]

To borrow from Bush and Cheney, both parties have some big time assholes. Both parties represent power hungry political organizations which desire power above and beyond doing the 'right' thing IMO. They've been going at it so long, they just jump on the opposite sides of issues without being guided by any central philosophy anymore. If one party finds something that resonates with voters, the other will offer another version - philosophy and convictions be damned. Unfortunately their contempt and bickering among each other seems to be playing itself out in the public now. We not only have come to expect it, but now we participate and promote it too.


On election day, I will hold my nose and pick a presidential canidate with no chance of winning.

[Donkey Drew]

Titus:

That's pretty silly if you take some time to think about it. If Democrats had the stomach to play GOP politics, George W. Bush would be trailing by 30 points by now. W. is the perfect example of GOP hypocrisy. There are so many 'character' simularities between the two that its almost frightening. Bush is, by all accounts, a person who's past includes a phantom assingment to the National Guard during Vietnam (draft dodger), a drug and alchohol problem, a very slow maturation process, and a spotty history of questionable business dealings. On top of it, he couldn't win a spot in a Jr. Jeopardy tournament. If the Democrats endorsed GOP tactics, this is pretty much all you'd hear about. Instead, the Democrats have kept the diologue out of the mud, and we now appear to be a few months away from having a simpleton occupying the Whitehouse.

[DiscoJones]

I understand the importance of space exploration, but to think that the things mentioned throughout this thread will occur in the next 10-20 years is a little too optimistic to me. The ISS (International Space Station) is coming under increasing scrutiny from Congress and I think they have already voted at least 20 times to stop funding it. If you really believe that this has to happen then you must also be reserved to the fact that the government is going to have a very large hand in the process in the beginning if not for posterity. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>"In addition, manufacturing of ceramics, pharmaceuticals, certain electronics, and many chemical compounds are all done more efficiently and are far less costly in a vacuum."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>All of these things that you mention here are being done by our government. There is no commercial development currently planned (other than turning Mir into a space hotel). When the government has to do it, it equals more tax money that has to be spent on it which equals less of a tax refund which equals upsetting all of the repubs who maintain that as the reason for voting republican.

While the things that you mention are physically possible, at this time, they are not practicle or even logistically and technologically possible.

And um, you don't know me or my political views, so please refrain from clumping me in with your paradigm of the ideal liberal. In return, I will do my best to refrain from referring to you in the future as a delusional trekky fascist.

[KCTitus]

LOL @ Drew. Your post is a DIRECT result of the same tactic from those on the left. The fact that you dont see this is even more hilarious.

On the other hand, I do feel for you, not having the common sense to realize all you're doing is reciting the mantra from the DNC playbook. Good soldier.

[Clint in Wichita]

Yeah, Drew! Haven't you learned that if your tongue isn't buried tonsil-deep in Bush's starfish you are an ignorant buffoon?

Get it together, man!

[Donkey Drew]

Ahhh, the old bait and switch. That's GOP politics if I've ever seen 'em. I envy the type of smug arrogance it takes to be an idealistic Republican. It reminds me a lot of arguing with my nephew:

"You're a stinky butt!!!"

"Na ah, You the stinky butt!!!...and a booga head, too!!!!"

[KCTitus]

Clint's right. It's better to have it in Gore's then you can make brilliant posts like #49.

~Never takes Clint long to go to the 'butt' humor~

[Ugly Duck]

All the major polls have the Bush edge unchanged at 3%, a statistical dead heat. Interesting that 10% of both Bush and Gore supporters have only tepid enthusiasm, and admit that they are still wavering. This is the closest race in recent memory, the hallmark of which is a marked lack of enthusiasm. I still have a feeling that Howdy Doody (oops - Bush) will win, but the picture is just too muddy to project anything.

[Donkey Drew]

I just love the fact if a Democrat points out the issues that Republicans would most certainly raise about their own candidate if he was the opposition, that makes Democrats guilty of the same or worse tactics. It's getting a lecture on not smoking pot from a guy smoking a joint. It's almost satirical.

[MrBlond]

If Bush wins it must mean that the electorate was tricked. No intelligent person could believe anything a Republican scumbag would say, they all lie and cheat and want children to starve and are generally just ******* communist.

[Iowanian]

my biggest concern is that if W wins, the Baldwins will leave the country http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/frown.gif what on earth would we ever do?

I really hope that Al Clinton, doesn't win. Farting creates greenhouse gasses, I jsut had taco bell, and I don't want a fine for "polluting"...

[Luzap]

DiscoJones,

I really don't want you mischaracterizing my statements. I said that we will begin this grand expansion within the next 10-20 years, and indeed we will.

You are correct when you talk about how slow government is to move along the lines of space exploration (although I need to correct you ~ the first commander of the International Space Station went into orbit just this week ~ it is far far being defunded).

I also must correct you on your take of industrial planning. Although still at the conceptual stage, many industries have specific goals and outlines of joint ventures in place, simply awaiting the day that these efforts become financially feasable.

Government is not accelerating the process; it is holding it back. We wouldn't be lost without the governments help; we would be empowered.

You can remain focused, if you wish, on the petty symbolic issues designed to control the masses and retain power, or you can vote to put a party in office that, at least, is based on the concepts of freedom and opportunity that is conducive to this future.

The battle does not end with the election; it begins. That is when the hardy among us will be hard at work building the future platform of the Republican Party.

Luz
call it as you see it...

[Ugly Duck]

THE FIELD INSTITUTE'S ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROJECTION
(x) Includes District of Columbia
Based on nonpartisan/media state poll reports as of October 27. 270 electoral votes needed for election.
.
STATES TO GORE (17 states(x), 224 electoral votes)
Calif. 54
Conn. 8
Del. 3
D.C. 3
Hawaii 4
Ill. 22
Mass. 12
Md. 10
Me. 4
N.H. 4
N.J. 15
N.Y. 33
Pa. 23
R.I. 4
Vt. 3
Wash. 11
Wis. 11
.
STATES TO BUSH (25 states, 214 electoral votes)
Ala. 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 8
Colorado 8
Ga. 13
Idaho 4
Ind. 12
Kansas 6
Ky. 8
La. 9
Miss. 7
Montana 3
Nebraska 5
Nevada 4
N.C. 14
N.D. 3
Ohio 21
Okla. 8
S.C. 8
S.D. 3
Texas 32
Utah 5
Va. 13
W.Va. 5
Wyoming 3
.
TOSS-UP (9 states, 100 electoral votes)
Ark. 6
Mo. 11
Minn. 10
Iowa 7
Tenn. 11
Mich. 18
Fla. 25
N.M. 5
Oregon 7
.
Source: The Field Institute
Chronicle Graphic <BR>

[Archie F. Swin]

Quote from Luz
--------------------------------------------
IMO, most Christian 'activism' is a result of losing long held rights to the liberals. Basic things like the ability to live in a community that espouses Christian views ~ including schools that support Christian values
---------------------------------------------

Please elaborate on these rights lost to liberals. And please tell me you're talking about private schools.

[KCTitus]

Drew: what's satirical is all that stuff has been brought up, yet I see no 30 pt lead for Gore. Other than attacking the opposition, the only other thing Ive seen the DNC do is try to scare people into voting for Gore.

I guess when the DNC does it, it's a noble thing to point out the pitfalls of the oppositions candidate, yet when the GOP does it--shock, horror, gasp--it's [insert scary music here] Politics of Destruction.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Yeah the DNC's scare tactics really turns me off. I hope people see through what they are doing.

Dan
Former Democrat turned Republican.<BR>

[Durtman]

That 224 years of this county's existance has led up to this day, that out of 250 million people, this is the best and brightest leadership that we can come up with, that cynisicm could concievably result in such a mass hallucination, that anyone could be remotely happy about our choice next Tuesday, or even happier in it's likely results leads me to cast an eye to a future time when historians will look back upon this moment and ask, "What in the name of God were those people ON!?"

[KC Jones]

Durtman,

TV.

[Donkey Drew]

Titus:

Brought up, perhaps, but certainly not featured. Turn the tables, and thats all this election would be about.

Give me an example of a couple DNC scare tactics.

[Iowanian]

donk,

1.mediscare...(GW will let old people starve and freeze to death.
2. Global Warming.....the sky is falling the sky is falling...
3.everyone will get a tax cut, everyone...not just Al's folks...oops, that doesn't sound that bad after all http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[DiscoJones]

Luz -

Please let me start by saying that I for one value your ideas and your conviction to expanding our livable environment to space. Barring some kind of catastrophy, I think that many of us will see civilian space travel in our lifetimes (primarily tourist in nature).

Our "grand expansion" began over 30 years ago and I think it will be at least another 30 by the time we see the kind of industrialization of space that you mention. If our country made the commitment right now, we could have alternate sources of energy in place before space utilization would even need to happen. Bush is wishy-washy on this topic to say the least. You don't want to bite the hand that feeds you and telling the oil companies that you support alternate sources of energy is like signing your own political death warrant. But as example, Zero-point energy and cold fusion are just two of the many possibilities. These two alone could impact the entire world drastically.

Anyway, I never disputed that the ISS is being used. I was just stating fact that Congress has already voted over 20 times to cut funding to it. All it means when you say that there are people on it now is that the legislation has failed up to this point. But, who knows what could happen? Maybe this is one project that Bush will cut so that everyone can have their tax rebate. Space exploration is near the bottom of the list for most people's priorities (I see the value in it and I think that you do too, but we are the minority).

(cont.)

[DiscoJones]

Industrial planning = conceptual stage. Heck, I remember people telling me that we would all be in flying cars by the year 2000 and I still haven't see one yet. The primary reason that these plans are still in the conceptual stage is that the technology and logistics do not exist (making it far too expensive). Besides, the risk of a great financial loss is too much for most companies to accept (see billions spent by govt. on failed missions). Traditionally, the government has paved the way and they will continue to do so.

Not to go on too much more here, but the government (or even UN for that matter) will also have a very large hand in the privatization of space through legislation.

So, not only do we have to worry about all of the scientists and money that it would take, we also have to worry about the international court system and unprecedented international legal rulings.

I think that these are important issues (energy and space) in the upcoming election, but due to their unpopular appeal, they are not frequently discussed. Our society is primarily reactive and these issues require proactivity.

[KCWolfman]

Drew - You realize of course, that Lieberman was at the forefront of judgement of Clinton's "scrutinous" behavior as well, dont you?

Of course, you can overlook that as it does not sit well in your perfect libby world.

[bkkcoh]

Which of the policies of the Dems would help the average Joe Six-pack??



------------------
bk

[htismaqe]

Disco,

That's a good point. The only reason the government can afford to waste billions on failed projects is because they can always depend on our tax money.

It's just plain wrong. The government is no longer accountable to the people.

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

[Baby Lee]

Scare tactics -
how about, because G-Dub didn't sign a particular "hate crimes" bill, it was like he killed James Byrd all over again.

How about, at the same time, decrying his assembly line of innocent, underage, retarded, pregnant minority women on their way to the gas chamber.
How about the TX lady who calls to tell you about how she hasn't let her kids out of the house in 6 years, because the air outside is a noxious, palpable potion of refinery and SUV emissions.
How about this "same trillion twice nonsense" regarding SS, which gives the distinct impression that that SURPLUS money is needed right now or checks will cease immediately. When even they know that that surplus will not be called upon for another 15-20 years, at which time the money invested now at a higher rate would have erased the shortfall.

There is room for honest debate on whether or not the market would create enough growth to recoup in the long term, but that would call into question the market, not G-Dub, and the Dems need faith in the market for other issues and can't afford to question it honestly for just this one issue. Not when it's easier to put out the soundbite "these Repubs are looking to stop printing your SS checks TODAY!!"

[This message has been edited by JC-Johnny (edited 11-01-2000).]

[bkkcoh]

How many government programs have you ever known to be stopped?

Gore proposed millions of dollars for cow fart studies to see how it effect the amount of green-house gases.



------------------
bk

[Donkey Drew]

Wolfman:

What you all are failing to grasp here is that I'm not excusing Lewinsky. My premise is that Lewinsky was a fortunate accident that ended up justifying GOP tactics. But what of the six fruitless years before Lewinsky? I don't by the notion that because Republicans stumbled across Lewinsky, all the previous behavior was somehow okay.

Both sides use scare tactics. I remember when Clinton took office and started in on health care reform. I was the Communications Director for the Colorado Democratic Party at the time, and I fielded 15 calls a day about why the Democrats wanted to destroy small business, as if we sat around and said-- "Hey, I know!!! Lets wipe out the backbone of the American economy for ****s and giggles!!! Whadaya say?...." An interesting side note was indepent polling that showed that Clinton's plan was widely unpopular when polled as "Clinton's Plan", while Dole's plan and other plans were quite popular. However, when polled as "Plan A", "Plan B", "Plan C", without attribution, Clinton's plan was supported by nearly 75%, and Dole's by less than 30%. The Republicans had essentially succeeded in attaching a negative stigma to Clinton and Democratic principals in general. They did it employing politics of division and by pushing hot buttons and employing scare tactics. So please, don't give this crap that the GOP is innocent of this sort of thing.

[KCWolfman]

DNC Scare tactics:

We are taking away your social security.

We are taking away medicare.

Your prescription medications are so outrageously priced that your dog takes the same meds cheaper.

Your environment will die.

Your schoolrooms will overfill and your children will be stupid

[bkkcoh]

Donkey Drew:

If the government would have been successful at what they were attempting to do, I am sure you would have seen more than the usual amount of small businesses go under because of the added cost of doing business.



------------------
bk

[KCWolfman]

Drew - You stated earlier that you needed to be shown what scare tactics the dems are using (I will reprint the post if you would like). Now when shown, you revert to the old "well we did it because you did" excuse.

Fact is that you asked for the tactics, fact is that you were shown those tactics.

Now, about the 'lynch mob' of the Republican party. If Clinton knew they were out to get him, dont you think he is twice as stupid to risk his pride, honor, and the honor of the most high office in the free world merely to get off?

[KCWolfman]

Drew - You stated earlier that you needed to be shown what scare tactics the dems are using (I will reprint the post if you would like). Now when shown, you revert to the old "well we did it because you did" excuse.

Fact is that you asked for the tactics, fact is that you were shown those tactics.

Now, about the 'lynch mob' of the Republican party. If Clinton knew they were out to get him, dont you think he is twice as stupid to risk his pride, honor, and the honor of the most high office in the free world merely to get off?

[DiscoJones]

htis - You echo the sentiments of the majority. FWIW - the space program has actually had a positive impact on our current society and economy, so the tax dollars spent were not in vain. Much of the computer technology (hardware) that we take for granted today was initially used and developed for the space program. The satellite dishes that many of you watch the Chiefs on are a direct result. Even the TV feed through cable comes from satellites. Your digital phones and GPS systems can thank the space race.

Besides all of the technological benefits which have directly resulted in helping our economy, we also gain military knowledge from the use of space. And that is probably the primary factor in perpetuating the governments continued commitment. Even W. is trying to bring back the old "star wars" defense system (which I believe is questionable at best).

There you have it. The two main reasons why the govt wants to launch your tax dollars into space: technological advancement and national security.

I think it's worth it (just maybe not the "star wars" program).

[bkkcoh]

I hope I am not alone in stating this:

I don't really that Clinton got off in the Oval Office, He used bad judgement that could have possibly put him in a very bad situation and could have compromised National Security. That is what I am most upset by.

If the wrong people would have be privy [sp] to that situation and blackmailed and/or extorted him, who knows what they would have been able to get from him or the US.


Or did those people end up on the death lists talked about on another thread. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
bk

[This message has been edited by bkkcoh (edited 11-01-2000).]

[KCWolfman]

BK - Actually he did admit to "getting off" in the Oval Office. While speaking with an ambassador of some small african nation.

[Donkey Drew]

I'd be willing to concede that Democrats tend to go a little overboard on senior citizen issues.

However, I believe one side note convieniently forgotten on this drug thing is the fact that the same drug costs more for humans than dogs. This is a fact, not a scare tactic.

If we continue to recklessly put industry before the environment, the consequences will be severe. Russia can attest to that. This is a fact, not a scare tactic.

If we don't figure out a way to reform schools and to build more schools, they will decline and they will become increasingly overcrowded. This is a simple fact, not a scare tactic.

We could go on and on with this. The reality is that the facts are indeed scary. Unfortunately, the Republican mantra seems to include burying ones head in the sand in favor of the politically expedient here and now. Eventually, that all will catch up to us.



[This message has been edited by Donkey Drew (edited 11-01-2000).]

[KCTitus]

Drew: note in your 'facts' there, you have a key word--'IF'.<BR>

[KCWolfman]

Drew - I used the word exaggeration when I mentioned Gore/Mother-in-Law/dogs/and prescription medications. It is a flat out lie, period.

Check out this link to the Washington Times
<a href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-2000926225346.htm">Gore Lies in Paragraph 16</a>

As far as schools go, the federal government has done nothing but line the pockets of teachers unions for the last 40 years. We are the single worst nation in the industrialized world with education yet we consistently spend in the top 5. Take away ALL federal spending and have the money go DIRECTLY to classrooms instead of through special interest groups. Only then will our education improve.

[KCWolfman]

Regarding Gore, dogs, people and meds. Gore never stated that his dog probably takes a generic version of the medication his mother-in-law takes, nor did he state that his dog takes 1/4th the meds his mother-in-law does due to relative size.

In actuality, if his mother-in-law takes the standard brand and 4 times as much as his dog, then his dog actually pays more for the meds than the mother-in-law, but almost 3 times as much.

The meds thing is a lie, flat out. And since only the first coverage makes front page on a story like this, the common man has no inkling of the truth, only the initial 30 second blurb - even when it is wrong.

[Donkey Drew]

Wolfman:

In the artical originally posted on this board, it was conceded that although Gore made up a situation, the drugs he used as an example can, in fact, be purchased more cheaply for a dog than a human. Scary sure. But true.

As for education, I'd agree that reforms must take place. I don't even reject the conservative point of view on education funding. However, it is not a scare tactic to point out that schools need our attention. Its just a fact.

[KCTitus]

However, it is not a scare tactic to point out that schools need our attention. Its just a fact.

No, it becomes a scare tactic when it's phrased like:

[Insert Republican candidate here] wants to defund the Education Program to give tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

Although it's extremely logical, but I do understand why a 'drug' costs more for a human than for an animal and it wouldnt be because of the mean old republicans, just a function of economics.<BR>

[mlyonsd]

My concern with nationalized medicine is that it will be harder for pharmaceutical companies to pay for R&D.

[KCWolfman]

Drew - Again from the Washington Post:

"Gore fabricated the cost of the arthritis drug itself, the comparative doses for his pet and for Tipper's mom, and how much his family pays for the dog's arthritis drug.

And, said the newspaper, Gore's example wrongly assumed that both the dog and the mother-in-law were taking the same dosage, which veterinarians say would cause serious digestive problems in a dog.

Gore's story also fails to account for the cheaper, generic version of Lodine given to animals, which costs about 75 percent less than the brand-name medication."

I work in the medical industry and have for over a decade. I have yet to see ONE person come in and tell me they pay less for their animal's medications than they do for their own. When someone shows me hard numbers, then I will believe it.

[Mark M]

The election is less than a week away and both of these goons are making me sick. Gore's claims about the cost of pet meds vs. human meds is one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard since Bush Sr.s "Read my lips" statement.

As far as education goes, it astounds me that this is being argued at the federal level. Is there a problem? Yes. Just look at the KC School District for the answer to that one. But the problem is that less than 10% of education funding comes from the feds. Education should be a state issue, not a primary one in the presidential race.

As far as Bush being ahead, that doesn't surprise me. Gore is being punished for Clinton's mistakes. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.

I'm still voting for my wife. Like I said in another post, she acts like she runs the world anyway! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

MM
--Just waiting to turn 35 . . .

[Donkey Drew]

Okay, Wolfman, I’ll concede the point on the arthritic drug. However, isn’t quibbling over this incident just a convenient way to distract people from the larger facts? For example, a Tylenol costs $15 in a hospital because price controls simply don’t exist. For example, if a young family is irresponsible enough to let a child get Leukemia, it could destroy them financially for the rest of their lives. For example, preventive health care remains out of reach of millions of Americans who can’t afford health insurance premiums. Rather than debate the health care issue, Republicans would rather nitpick and look for any reason to avoid the larger conversation.

What’s doubly sad is that Gore is moronic enough to play into their hands.

[KCTitus]

Tylenol costs $15 in a hospital because price controls simply don’t exist. - Ever heard of Medicare? Most times the govt run healthcare programs do not reimburse the hospitals for the actual costs of goods and services. The hospitals in turn have to recoup their costs by charging others higher prices. Simple economics, but hardly the fault of the mean old republicans.

if a young family is irresponsible enough to let a child get Leukemia, it could destroy them financially for the rest of their lives. - You cannot legislate a risk free society. Neither the Dems or Reps can legislate the end of irresponsibility. It's life and it's not fair, but hardly the fault of the mean old republicans.

preventive health care remains out of reach of millions of Americans who can’t afford health insurance premiums. - Preventive healthcare is annual checkups as well as exercise and the proper diet. It doesnt take insurance to do those things and a doctors visit is roughly 30-70 dollars. There are even some clinics who will give checkups for free.

Republicans would rather nitpick and look for any reason to avoid the larger conversation. - So far, the only NEW ideas to these problems have been addressed by republicans, all Ive heard from dems is scare tactics and defense of the status quo.

Maybe the Dems could stop defending the programs we all recognize as failures and join the conversation.<P>

[TheFly]

Huh?

Dem bad old Republicans is at it again! Taking away our rights to health by not controlling those dang-gum hospitals!!!

I'm gonna get me whip, by gum....<BR>

[Donkey Drew]

The funny thing is I haven't blamed any of it on the mean old Republicans. I've just pointed out that they'd rather distract people from certain issues rather than address them. It's smart politically, because not taking a stand on anything is more politically expedient than the alternative. But its sort of pathetic, and certainly not leadership.

The persecution complex is amusing, though. Guilty conscience?

[This message has been edited by Donkey Drew (edited 11-01-2000).]

[Baby Lee]

Donkey Drew - pah-tay-toe, pah-tah-toe

Gore's exaggeration comes from a deep seated belief that governance is, at its core, a contest. No one wins a contest by seeing merit in the opposition. In Gore's world, you win the political "contest" by making the problems you have identified as resonating with the voters as large as possible, your experience in handling these problems as broad as plausible and the "enemy's" approach as dunderheaded as possible. Then his plan, apparently for everything, is "to work with all my heart and soul for YOU." Whatever the hell that means.

[Warrior5]

Expect about $50 million in Tomahawk Cruise missiles to go down range sometime before 7 November.

[KCTitus]

Drew: I had to laugh at your last post in #92. Because you didnt practice what you preach. Rather than address my post you went on another tangent.

I might warn you that apparently someone has logged in under your ID and posted the following:

The Republicans had essentially succeeded in attaching a negative stigma to Clinton and Democratic principals in general. They did it employing politics of division and by pushing hot buttons and employing scare tactics.

It has also been the major premise behind all of your posts. So, no, it's not a 'persecution complex' but rather a direct response to your post. Something you seem to want but dont practice.

On the drive home, I thought of a way to eliminate that pesky $15 Tylenol problem without being an elected official or federal legislation: Anyone needing Tylenol, purchase it from a local drug store. I know for a fact that the Eckerd down the street from my house has Tylenol (The big bottle) for sale and it's not even $10. Problem solved and no federal legislation--Wow. It can be done.

[KCWolfman]

Actually Drew, I now understand why you have sided with Gore. A tylenol in the local Kansas City hospitals runs anywhere from .75 cents to 4.00. You have actually more than tripled the price in your estimation.

Price fixing doesnt work. Nixon tried it, Ford tried it and it just made the economy worse. If you want to cure the ails of the cost of medication in a hospital, have medicare and medicaid pay a fair share market value instead of the what the government decides.

A group seven surgery (from the ASC groupers) is normally in the range of 2,000-3,500.00 in the Kansas City area. A group seven surgery is generally reimbursed by medicare at 652.00 in the Kansas City area - medicaid is even worse. No matter what the cost of emergency room services (including level 5 traumas) medicaid reimburses approximately 450.00 in the Kansas City area. This means if you are lifeflighted in, have an emergency trachetomy, an MRI of the brain, several dozen xrays, and the use of 4 hours of an emergency room physician's time and space, medicaid will pay 450.00 and demand the rest be written off at cost to the hospital.

Of course, we could always socialize medicine and force the cost (as you suggest), but that just widens the gap between rich and poor. The wealthy canadians and british come to our country due to their socialized medicines. They have less than stellar physicians due to poor pay, so they come here for real treatment. And the poor hate them for it.

Price controls are as anticapitalistic as it gets.

[Donkey Drew]

Titus:

I'm not seeing what you're getting at in the first part of your post.

As for the Tylenol, thats a practical solution except for one thing-- the hospital is going to bill you for the Tylenol whether you take it or the one you bought at the store. The Tylenol is just a symbol of the overall insanity surrounding the cost of health care.

[KCTitus]

Russ: I'd have to say that Medicare and Medicaid DO and ARE price controls. When they reimburse a set figure without regard to the cost involved, the price is fixed.

Of course now we're just quibbling about a side issue to distract attention from the real problem: Free healthcare for all regardless of cost to anyone who wants it and no one has to pay for it.

[KCTitus]

Drew: If the hospital bills you for Tylenol that you didnt take, I would contest the bill you dont have to pay for it if you didnt take it from them. That's pure stupidity to pay for it.

When my wife gave birth to our second child I received a bill for an epidural. She didnt not receive an epidural and I call my insurance company and told them not to pay it. When the insurance company investigated it turned out to be a billing error. - easily fixed, but I had to be responsible about it.

[KCWolfman]

Greg - And both systems are constantly floundering and refusing to keep up with the current cost of living increases.

[Donkey Drew]

You go, guys!!! Lets blow this out of proportion and make it a total pinko-commie conspiracy!!! That's the best way to deal with it. Find that hot button, divide, distract, move on.

The fact is, health care reform was used as an example. Do I personally favor 'socialized' medicine? No. But that wasn't what I was arguing anyway. I was pointing out that GOP leadership would rather avoid discussing the issue and are generally successful in finding ways to distract. Your increasingly shrill responses to me are a great example.

The un and underinsured are as much responsible for driving up health costs and premiums as Medicare and Medicade. But why should you guys care-- you're insured. Isn't that the Republican way?

[KCWolfman]

Greg - You state fact. Our hospital, Overland Park Regional Medical Center, had 4 auditors (one for each floor), and an independent auditor for just such cases as yours. Any bill over 1,000.00 is instantly reviewed. And any questions you have are always reviewed for accuracy.,

[KCTitus]

LOL @ Drew...

Did you want to discuss the failures of the current system or go off the deep end? Seems to me you bring up the 'avoidance' issue, but you are the only one avoiding the discussion.

Is it because you favor the status quo? Sorry, Drew, status quo is a failure, once you've recognized that you can then start identifying ways to change the status quo. Who's got the new ideas? Um, it's not the democrats who want to keep pumping more and more money in medicaid and medicare.

One last point, you will NEVER, EVER, insure 100% of the people 100% of the time. So forget the utopian dream. I can tell you that when I was in college I was uninsured, not because of a mean conspiracy of the republicans, but by choice. Had I been injured and needed care, it would have been the result of my choices and not the fault of anyone but me. I dare say I'm not the only one who took this risk.

[KCWolfman]

Drew - Talk about only seeing what you want? You state that aspirin are more than three times the true rate, you deliberately avoid the democratic systems already set in place (medicare and medicaid) which fail miserably, and you forget to mention that over 75% of the people who are uninsured in the U.S. have cable TV, and over 33% of the uninsured have cars less than 5 years old.

So it isnt all "poor people who cannot afford healthcare" in your database.

[This message has been edited by KCWolfman (edited 11-01-2000).]

[KCTitus]

Russ: My car is over 10 years old and I pay 500 @ month in health insurance premiums. I dare say that I could afford a nice car for 500 @ month. I never thought of the possibilities.

Maybe the dems should hurry up with that additional funding for uninsured so I can take the money Im currently spending on insurance and buy a new car and then go on the 'dole'.

~Eyeing that new Lexus~

[Donkey Drew]

You know what? A lot of people drunk drove last night. No way were going to stop drunk driving. Its a utopian dream. Why don't we repeal drunk driving laws?

More to the original point, health care reform is just an example. Republicans would rather distract than deal with it. They'd rather focus on anecdotes and technicalities than the issue at hand. Why? First and formost, because they don't want the AMA and HMO gravy train to slow down and they realize that their base is largely insured. Who gives a rats *** about the uninsured family if you're okay? That's somebody else problem. Second, and almost as important, is political expiedience. You can't be criticized if you don't have a stand on anything. Or, better put, its far easier to rip somebody elses ideas than formulate your own. Its less contraversial, too.

[KCTitus]

its far easier to rip somebody elses ideas than formulate your own - With that, I do agree, Drew. The dems do this on a daily basis.

Still not going to address the points discussed here, eh?

[Donkey Drew]

"...you forget to mention that over 75% of the people who are uninsured in the U.S. have cable TV, and over 33% of the uninsured have cars less than 5 years old."

Ahhh, the essence of the modern conservative ideology. EVERYBODY that's down and out, behind the eight ball, not doing so well, etc, is a distrustful slacker. I can't imagine my daily existance full of this sort of distrust and cynicism.

[KCTitus]

A lot of people drunk drove last night. No way were going to stop drunk driving. Its a utopian dream. Why don't we repeal drunk driving laws?

Last I heard, it wasnt illegal to choose not to purchase insurance so I hardly see how this analogy fits. Apples and oranges, but nice try there drew.

You cannot legislate fairness. Sorry.

[KCWolfman]

Drew - I have pointed out the flaws in your system that you defend. The democrats have failed with healthcare reform for the last 40 years.

Instead of telling me that I am avoiding what is new, why dont you just tell me what the democrats are suggesting?

The only thing you have suggested is price control. And I think I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that price controls do not work. What else do you have to offer that will fix the problem?


One of the democrats promises 8 years ago was healthcare reform - has it happened? Hell, Billary even appointed his wife as a special counsel and ABSOLUTELY nothing was done. I have seen your 'reforms' in action - and I am not impressed.

[Donkey Drew]

It's not apples and oranges in the sense that if it isn't 100% perfect it isn't worthy. It's actually a pretty valid, reasonable argument.

[Donkey Drew]

Wolfman:

Any chance at meaningful reform was destroyed by GOP scare tactics. Healthy doses of 'they aim to destroy small business' and continuous usage of 'socialized medicine' kept the focus off the actual merits of reforms. I addressed this earlier in this thread, by the way. Perhaps you ought to scroll back.

[KCWolfman]

Drew - For one complaining about others splitting hairs, that is all I have seen you do on this thread.

Down and out??? PLEAAASSSEEE!!! Those that are truly "down and out" receive welfare and medicaid. They are not part of this discussion as we already pay for their benefits - in other words, they are already insured.

At least stick to facts. What is "down and out" to you? I cant wait to read your interpretation.

[KCTitus]

LOL. Ok Drew, now you're just focusing on technicalities to distract from the real issue.

Nothing is 100% perfect. And apparently, your avoidance of the Healthcare issue, which YOU brought up, means that you disagree that the current status quo is a failure.

I can understand, it is a hard thing to defend after the trillions poured down that black hole.

[Ugly Duck]

So whats going to happen on the prescription drug scene when Bush moves into the White House? The drug companies sell to U.S. customers at an amazingly high rate of profit. They've blown the price up so high here at home that Americans who live in border areas drive to other countries to fill prescriptions. They rake in the seriously inflated profits hand over fist because we'll die if we don't take our medications. And they don't like Gore because he's serious about making prescription drugs afordable and they fear he might negotiate to bring their profit margins out of the stratosphere.

So the drug companies are piling the campaign contribution onto the Bush camp. Bush is loving the windfall contributions from the drug companies, and will do whats good for business when he gets elected. The drug companies will be able to keep their sky-high prices that they charge Americans, and Bush will just have the taxpayers subsidize their obscene profit margin with his prescription drug plan.

Bush and Gore will both suck money from us. But Gore will suck it to pay down the national debt. Bush will suck it to have taxpayers subsidize the enormous profits of the drug companies. They both suck, but Gore sucks for a better reason.

[KCTitus]

Russ: I think I get it now...Drew is merely demonstrating the republican tactics by 'distracting and avoiding the real discussion' here.

[KCTitus]

UD: I no more believe that Gore would actually pay down the national debt any more than he 'invented' the internet.

If anything Gore would do his damndest to spend that money on really GOOD programs.

[KCWolfman]

Duck - SO what you are saying is that if Bush is in office, people who design products to enhance and save lives will make a profit, and if GOre is in office he will strip that profit and give more money to those "down and outs" that Drew mentioned earlier????

Horrors, what a rotten concept to be paid for what you are worth.

[KCWolfman]

Duck - Besides, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who support price controls, and in the same breath supports people who do nothing but entertain (such as raiders) for millions of dollars a year.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

UD,

I'm not sure if I believe what the Dems are saying about Bush and the influence of the drug cømpanies. With all the scare tactics out there, I wonder if this is exagerrated. The way that Gore and the Dems have pounded this issue, makes you think that the drug companies are the only ones contributing to Bush's campaign.

The only real way to bring down prescription prices is to have a healthy competition between drug makers.

Dan<BR>

[TheFly]

DD, distract from the issues? Republicans? You act like they invented that tactic, when it has been so skillfully handled by Democrats as well...

Let's see now... Monica was a vast right wing conspiracy meant to distract from real issues... The gov't shutdown was the fault of the Republicans... Welfare reform was the fault of the Republicans... The budget surplus was the fault of the Republicans... The Medicare problem is due to skillful distractions... immigration... hate crime... you name it... them bad Republicans are behind anything that's viewed as obstructionist...

Clearly, you are the pot calling the kettle black...<BR>

[Baby Lee]

If you want a clear sign of the desperation in the Gore campaign, his talking heads were on the talking head shows last night asking these two questions.

Re Nader: He's never been married. Don't you want to know who would be sleeping in his White house bed with him were he elected? (i.e., he's a "confirmed" bachelor, wink, wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean, know what I mean].

Re Bush: He's admitted to excessive drinking in his past. Someone needs to ask him, if foreign policy decisions get tough, if there is a pressing decision regarding deployment of troops, how sure is he that he won't pickl the bottle back up during this crucial time?

EEEWWWW!!!! I would rather lose than win on the dog-shiite pile of innuendo and "whispering campaigns" that is amassing under the rubric of the Gore campaign.

[Luzap]

JC_Johnny,

Unfortunately it's going to get worse over the next 5 days.

Luz
what's next???...

[Donkey Drew]

Sorry guys, I didn't realize we were actually debating health care reform. All I've seen from you are statements that there isn't anything needed fixing other than the irresponsibility of 'them' people. In the last 18 months, my wife and I have run up medical bills of about $30,000. Niether of us has spent a night in the hospital or had any sort of proceedure that required herculian efforts, yet $30,000 has filtered from our insurance company and our pockets to a handful of doctors. If this is okay in your book, how in the heck do you even debate something like that?

What's funny, is I doubt anybody would think it was okay to spend $150,000 on a Volkswagen Rabbit. Yet its pretty much the same concept. We have allowed an entire industry take complete advantage of people simply because they can. What's your alternative if your personal market can't bear the cost of medical supply? You freekin' die or suffer. They got you by the shorthairs.

Again, if you see no problem in this, where exactly is the debate?

[htismaqe]

They rake in the seriously inflated profits hand over fist because we'll die if we don't take our medications.

BULL****!!!

75% of profits pulled in by drug companies are for "designer" medications. Here's a list of some of the top selling medications currently in the US:

Prozac, Ritalin, Paxil, Serzone, and Claritin

Three of those are anti-depressants, one is a behavior modificaiton drug, and the last is for allergies.

The idea that we will DIE without these medications is LUDICROUS. We survived for thousands of years without them.

The medications that people need, like insulin, blood pressure medication, aspirin, and anti-biotics are cheap and easily obtainable.

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

[Luzap]

Drew,

With all respect buddy, the following statement...

"We have allowed an entire industry take complete advantage of people simply because they can."

...shows that you have a complete lack of understanding of the situation.

There is no reason to debate an issue if one of the parties doesn't have a decent understanding of entire subject.

Luz
sorry, but you need to do some homework...

[Donkey Drew]

Whatever, Zap.

My dad's insurance company recently spent around $7,000 to pay for a 30 minute coliostomy (or whatever the routine bowel exam is called). $7,000 bucks to a doctor for sticking a tube up his *** and looking at his insides. It was such a complicated and invasive proceedure that he went home right afterward and got his results the next day. You can buy a very nice used car for $7,000. $7,000 will cover a down payment for an FHA Mortgage. It cost me less than $7,000 to get my first three semesters of college education. Yet a doctor and hospital got the same for a routine exam.

What's not to understand about that?



[This message has been edited by Donkey Drew (edited 11-02-2000).]

[KCTitus]

All I've seen from you are statements that there isn't anything needed fixing other than the irresponsibility of 'them' people.

Obviously, Drew has not read the posts.

The only one who brought up 'irresponsibility' was YOU. In your hypothetical in #89.

Since you obviously failed to read most of the posts last night, I might just suggest you understand that one of the main reasons for all of the problems in the HC industry can be directly attributed to Medicare and Medicaid and BTW, they are the price control things that you suggested way back when and they are a failure.

[Donkey Drew]

"...you forget to mention that over 75% of the people who are uninsured in the U.S. have cable TV, and over 33% of the uninsured have cars less than 5 years old."

I don't know, that sounds like blaming it on the people to me...

[KCTitus]

Well if it's true, it's true. Not blame, it's their choice.

[Baby Lee]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR> "...you forget to mention that over 75% of the people who are uninsured in the U.S. have cable TV, and over 33% of the uninsured have cars less than 5 years old."
I don't know, that sounds like blaming it on the people to me... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not blaming, but demonstrating that people make choices and those choces sometimes don't reflect a high priority for healthcare.

This is a consumer culture that is going deeply into debt to garner material possessions, but it the 8 bajillion beanie-babies in boxes in the garage, a new big screen, a new car, satellite dish, etc.

If I have a dollar in my pocket and the local greasy spoon has hamburgers $.50, small fries $.50, and cheeseburgers $1.00, I can't order the cheeseburger, eat it, decide I'm still hungry and demand a free order of fries.

[This message has been edited by JC-Johnny (edited 11-02-2000).]

[htismaqe]

I guess since I work 70 hours a week, alot of times in the middle of the night, it's ok that I have to pay taxes to feed the kids of the guy next door, even though the sheriff is there to serve him papers 2 to 3 times a week?

This is absolute bull****...I'm all about helping the fellow man, but it's well known in psychological circles that you can't help someone that doesn't want to help themselves. So instead we write them checks, and let them do whatever the hell they want.

**** THAT...

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

[htismaqe]

By the way, I had my house appraised the other day and was told that if my neighbors house (and his van up on blocks) wasn't there, my house would be worth TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS MORE!!!

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

[Donkey Drew]

No doubt that the world is full of people wanting a free lunch. But what of the family that gets a juvenile diabitees diagnosis while dad is between jobs and not covered? Does that family deserve to pay for the guy down the streets irresponsibility?

[TheFly]

If I might take a little detour here... Not all the drugs mentions (Prozac, Ritalin, Claritin, Paxil, etc) should be viewed as "designer" drugs...

For example, Paxil is better defined as a seratonin booster, rather than an anti-depressant. It is used for depression, but it is also used for migraine headaches. And I can vouch for that personally. Unless you've had one, you just don't know how incapacitating a migraine can be. Paxil is an absolute necessity in my case.

It's also a bit disingenous to regard these designer drugs as "optional" if you don't know how they are being applied. It may be true that in the old days we didn't "need" them. But it's also true that in the old days a lot of people died or were otherwise critically incapacitated because these medicines simply didn't exist. Hence, fewer problems because the problems eliminated themselves. Darwins survival of the fittest if you will.

Drugs aren't the problem here. I actually find that gov't is the problem. Ever since Medicare was instituted, health care costs have skyrocketed because of that cash cow and the greed of doctors and hospitals and insurance companies...

[htismaqe]

Fly,

I agree with you that Paxil can be used to treat migraines and that YOU need it.

However, 95% of the people that take SSRI's take them for depression, anxiety, or phobic relief.

Paxil is used to treat people's inability to deal with other members of society. What? Step away from the computer, go outside, and TALK to somebody for Christ's sake!

I don't doubt that you need Paxil. But many out there don't. It's not necessarily the fault of the drug companies that our society has become socially medicated. It's our propensity to find "the quick solution", to do whatever takes the least amount of work. Don't feel quite right? Here take this.

One reason that I am so adamant about this is that when I was 10 I was put on Ritalin. I don't remember 2 years of my life. After the Ritalin, came Darvon and some tri-cyclic I can't remember. Then it was marijuana. They tried to cure me of "that" with Amitryptilene. Then I took an MAOI for a while. I've taken Paxil, Prozac, Luvox, Anafranil, Xanax, Valium and many others I can't remember. I've been on so many chemicals that I couldn't do without them. So after I moved away from home and my parent's doctor, I started with LSD, coke, methamphetamines, and opium.

Sure it's my fault that I did all those things. But the seed was planted by those doctors, putting me on medication that they had NO IDEA how it would affect me.

It's not a good idea to **** with people's brains...

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

[TheFly]

I agree about drugs being overprescribed and wrongly prescribed. Need to have a good doctor.

My son was "diagnosed" as overactive and too hard to handle in class, so the teacher and school wanted to put him on Ritalin. We said "Hell no."

If my son is a problem let me know and we'll work it out. The teacher was an idiot and wanted all the little boys to behave like passive zombies in her class. We transferred him to another school and he has thrived just fine, thank you very much.

I am very sorry that you were put through drug hell... It's not right... It's the easy way out for parents who don't want to do their job, or for teachers who don't want to be inconvenienced.

There may be kids who really, really need Ritalin. I just haven't met any in either of my children's classes... I've seen behavior problems... But none that require being drugged...<BR>

[Clint in Wichita]

Just because people "got by" without those "designer" drugs (whatever the h_ll that means) doesn't mean they are unnecessary now. There was a time when the human race got by without antibiotics. Maybe we should discard them as well. Most of us can get by just fine without them.

[Donkey Drew]

I don't naturally suffer from depression, but I had a recent bout that was induced by Ambien, a drug for insomnia. Although it was mild, it was baffling and miserable. That experience makes me doubt that prozac and other anti-depressants are optional for those that suffer from acute, chronic depression.

[htismaqe]

Clint and Donkey:

Sorry, I guess I gave the wrong impression. There are many cases where it's needed. For example, "acute depression" as you said, is one case. However, why does "acute depression" require a "chronic" solution rather than an "acute" solution.

I'm not saying that people don't need them. I personally take Celexa and Risperdal for my depression and do quite well. However, after 5 years of therapy with a special psychiatrist, it was discovered that my depression is caused by a chemical imbalance induced by improperly prescribed anti-depressants.

There is a propensity for doctors to prescribe these types of medication WITHOUT TESTING and researching the patient. "You have pimples on your back making you feel bad? Here take some anti-depressants." Why not prescribe anti-acne medication? Well, have you ever seen all the calendars, day-planners, posters, etc. that lay around a doctor's office that have the newest "designer drug" logo plastered all over them? Have you ever noticed that doctors give you FREE samples of most of these drugs for 3-4 weeks and then write yoy a 6-month scrip for when those run out.

Again, I'm not saying that there aren't people who need them. I'm one of them. However, for every 1 person that NEEDS them, there's 20 that take them and don't.

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

[htismaqe]

BTW Drew, acute and chronic are opposites by definition...what you suffered from was acute depression, specifically caused by a reagent. Ambien is another drug that qualifies under what I'm saying. I know you need it, not being able to sleep can kill a person. But prescribing these drugs whole-heartedly, without understanding their side-efects, is what led to your problem in the first place.

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

[htismaqe]

Clint:

There's a VERY strong case to be made that OVERPRESCRIPTION of popular antibiotics is why we have so many problems today with diseases.

Harvard recently did a study on immuno-resistant diseases, and many of them are so virulent specifically because we were so flippant with our use of antibiotics.

Perhaps someday, we'll come to learn the same about anti-depressants.

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

[Donkey Drew]

Htis:

Sorry, I meant to type acute or chronic...

I stopped the Ambien. I'd rather toss and turn than feel the way it made me feel. It was the wierdest thing-- this sadness, misery, and emotional lathargy for no reason at all. Within 48 hours of stopping, I was my old self again, so I agree entirely with you on the overmedicating thing. Clearly, some people's problems are perpetuated by lazy doctors who don't want to dig for the underlying cause. I was simply making the point that some drugs that aren't necessarily life sustaining are still crucial to those that need them.

[htismaqe]

Here's a funny story...

After all the **** I went through, I decided to start going to a DO (osteopathic doctor) because that whole branch of medicine is supposed to concentrate on causes rather than symptoms. Well, he was great. He cut down all my meds, found some stuff that really worked for me, and we started treating underlying causes instead of covering up symptoms. I was flying high, I felt better than I had in years.

DO's started getting more and more prevalent. Other people were seeing it to. Then, in the summer of 1996, my insurance company sent me a letter telling me that they were changing my plan and weren't going to pay for my doctor anymore. In fact, I looked through the list of "approved" doctors, and found that NONE of them were DO's, all MD's. I was pissed. So I changed insurance companies.

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>

[htismaqe]

How's this for scare tactics?

Any advances made in workers rights, achieving a living wage or eliminating corporate influence in government would be reversed if Bush wins the election

George Becker, president of the United Steelworkers of America.

I guess his endorsement of Gore, or his pleas to Nader to drop out don't qualify as "corporate influence in government"? Not to mention the fact that, if you had to choose, would you want Microsoft and Exxon to have the ear of our government, or the top generals of the Chinese RED ARMY?!?!?

Virtually everything the environmental community has achieved over the past 30 years could be at stake

Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group

So despite the fact that Gore allowed toxic waste to be disposed of on his own personal land in Tennessee means he's not a risk to our environent either?

------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator

[This message has been edited by htismaqe (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Mark M]

Dang double post . . .sorry.

[This message has been edited by Mark M (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Mark M]

I know this is off the topic, but everyone else started it . . .

htis--
DOs were at one time questionable: my mom's a nurse and just recently started to trust them. I went to 5 Drs for back problems and got all but the right answer. Went to a DO (Dr. Creek in KC) and found out I had scoleosis . . .all the PT I went thgough did more damage than good. Screw MDs . . . DOs take care of the entire problem, not the symptoms.

MM
--Walks with a lean . . . but now knows why.

[htismaqe]

The other thing, Mark, is that I've found that my DO orders significantly less testing.
He actually looks at my body, examines the symptoms, and THEN orders tests.

My wife goes to an MD, and if she has a stomach ache, he'll order a CAT scan!

I think DOs throw a wrench in the gears of the racket that is our medical system...I hate insurance companies...

------------------
Parker
[b]ChiefsPlanet Administrator</B>