...and they're off!

[quade 4]

Quote

Aren't all statutes, regulations and rules for the purpose of social engineering?

Wasn't expecting that from you of all people.

There are plenty of laws that have nothing to do with social engineering. I think aviation laws for the most part are a good example. The laws, for the most part, are meant to protect innocent people from getting physically hurt by other people performing an activity or service, but they generally don't say that you as an individual can't go out and kill yourself by performing that activity.

I think that is pretty good government policy.

Telling people that if they get married so they can get a tax break is, to my way of thinking, silly. Especially since there are a LOT of marriages that end in divorce, so what's the net gain by giving married people a tax break?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,991]

>Idear (as opposed to idea)!

You did indeed!

What do you call a blind deer? No idear.

How about a blind deer with no legs? Still no idear.

A blind deer with no legs and no penis? *************

(a free beer to the first person who can identify the punch line)

[Jib 0]

Quote

I disagree. We are fools if we hand over the structuring of our families to our government. It is simply none of their business. We are a free people, and we should use that freedom to create our families as we see fit, not try to make laws that encourage people to create cost-saving marriages so they get that $2000 piece of paper. Such marriages do not give us a better future.

Your decision has little to do with the usefulness of the policy. You are free to do as you please. If you are going to assume that the majority of people as going to have children, can you defend a system which discourages marriage?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[quade 4]

Quote

Kerry really screwed up when he took the low blow at Cheney's daughter calling her a lesbian...

Uh, yeah, 'cause like that was such a huge secret?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

You have to remember I've made a lot of jumps with Muscat (well, maybe not a LOT, but certainly enough).

Still no fuckin' ideer.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TypicalFish 0]

I have to say I was very impressed with GWB's answer regarding how his faith effects his policy decisions.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[billvon 2,991]

>Kerry really screwed up when he took the low blow at Cheney's daughter
>calling her a lesbian... Big FUBAR...

Not sure about that. In general, I think it's a bad idea to get someone else's family involved in anything, but Cheney has called her that, and she has been made a much bigger issue by republicans. Alan Keyes described her as a lesbian selfish hedonist, and the log cabin republicans have mentioned her in pretty much every statement that they've released.

So I agree it was a mistake, but I think the mistake was involving her at all, not in 'outing' her or anything.

[okalb 104]

Quote

It wasn't really a consideration back then

But assault weapons were...sorry you can't have it both ways.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[PhreeZone 20]

What do you call a girl with one leg? Ilean
Where do you take her on a date? IHop

I've been waiting a long time for a change to use those.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 2,991]

>If you are going to assume that the majority of people as going to
>have children, can you defend a system which discourages marriage?

Can I? I'm not sure; I wouldn't try. I don't think taxes should encourage _or_ discourage people to get that piece of paper.

[billvon 2,991]

OK, I owe you a beer.

[quade 4]

Woo Hoo! I don't have to stop by the 7/11 on Saturday!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[cyric77 0]

I agree Bush won this debate, and I also agree that it was inappropriate to bring up Cheney's daughter. Kerry could have effectively made his point without the reference, and I believe it may hurt him a little concerning his personal character. That is if the high volume of people watching did not turn on the MLB playoffs. We see what the spin is over the next couple of days.

[lewmonst 0]

Quote

I have to say I was very impressed with GWB's answer regarding how his faith effects his policy decisions.

And I have to say how dissapointed I was that religion was brought into this debate so much.

peace
lew

http://www.exitshot.com

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

Quote

I have to say I was very impressed with GWB's answer regarding how his faith effects his policy decisions.

And I have to say how dissapointed I was that religion was brought into this debate so much.

peace
lew

The issue was brought up by a direct question from the moderator...

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[lewmonst 0]

Quote

>Kerry really screwed up when he took the low blow at Cheney's daughter
>calling her a lesbian... Big FUBAR...

Not sure about that. In general, I think it's a bad idea to get someone else's family involved in anything, but Cheney has called her that, and she has been made a much bigger issue by republicans. Alan Keyes described her as a lesbian selfish hedonist, and the log cabin republicans have mentioned her in pretty much every statement that they've released.

So I agree it was a mistake, but I think the mistake was involving her at all, not in 'outing' her or anything.

I only think it was a mistake because he played that card already in the last debate.

I was impressed that he took a stand on saying he believed that homosexuals were living the lives they were meant to live, that is, they did not "chose" to be gay. I have a handful of gay friends, and they all also reiterate that it is not a choice.

peace
lew

http://www.exitshot.com

[lewmonst 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have to say I was very impressed with GWB's answer regarding how his faith effects his policy decisions.

And I have to say how dissapointed I was that religion was brought into this debate so much.

peace
lew

The issue was brought up by a direct question from the moderator...

I know. And I was dissapointed in the moderators choice of questions on that. I was also dissapointed in the moderator starting the debate off with a security question which obviously brought out all the rehashed war debate answers we've already heard.

peace
lew

http://www.exitshot.com

[Dagny 0]

Quote

So I agree it was a mistake, but I think the mistake was involving her at all, not in 'outing' her or anything.

You're right. Kerry didn't out her, but her sexuality or lifestyle had no business being brought up (yet again) in the debate. It was inappropriate and unnecessary. What really annoyed me was one of Kerry's campaign managers (cannot remember her name for the life of me) stating in a post-debate interview that Cheney's daughter was "fair game". It seemed more like an underhanded attempt to discourage Bush supporters or undecideds all wrapped up in a not-so-discrete backwards compliment.

What I'm curious to know about Kerry is this...how can he take away tax breaks from small business owners (those who earn >200K per year) and implement a higher national minimum wage without causing downsizing and unemployment as well as increased cost to the consumer?

The one thing I truly don't understand about his "plan" is how he can implement so many different programs while simultaneously cutting taxes?

Overall, I liked this debate almost as much as the recent vice-presidential debate. The only thing that I was disappointed in was the amount of repetitiveness that occurred. Other than that, I thought it was intelligent and well done.

And, I also enjoyed Bush's closing statements. I thought they were gracious, hopeful, and concise.

Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic.
-Salvador Dali

[billvon 2,991]

>The one thing I truly don't understand about his "plan" is how he can
>implement so many different programs while simultaneously cutting taxes?

Well, to be fair, Kerry has said he would raise taxes on the $200K+ tax bracket. But neither candidate answered how they were going to cut the deficit in half in five years - not even Kerry's tax would come close to doing that.

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

For the love of all that's holy . . . would they PLEASE frame them the same! This is bugging the crap out of me! GWB is being framed MUCH tighter than Kerry. Just take a look at the split screen on MSNBC.

In the split screen view, for the second half of the debate, both podiums were visible at the same height, and the space above each of their heads was the same. The only way to accomplish that is to zoom in much closer on bush and zoom out on kerry.

But the first half, the zoom is the same, kerry's podium is not visible, and bush's is practically the bottom 1/4 of the screen.

Trade offs. Like they were experimenting as they were going. Y'think they woulda figured it out ahead of time.

So what did they say? I wasn't payin' attention.

[Dagny 0]

Quote

And I have to say how dissapointed I was that religion was brought into this debate so much. I was also dissapointed in the moderator starting the debate off with a security question which obviously brought out all the rehashed war debate answers we've already heard.

I felt like the religion question was a legitimate query by the moderator. Bush's faith has been brought into many a debate concerning its role in his legislative decisions. I am, without a doubt, for the separation of church and state. However, I felt it was a good opportunity to understand the personal motivation behind the two candidates. Particularly since both claim to be men of faith. Am I the only one who finds it very interesting that two Christian men can have such variable moral beliefs? (i.e. abortion rights, partial birth abortion stance, and homosexual partner rights)

And, as far as the first question went, homeland security is a top concern given the continued threats against the US and the breaches of our immigration system which occur regularly. A debate on domestic issues would be remiss without its inclusion.

Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic.
-Salvador Dali

[sundevil777 102]

Kerry sure has a lot of different plans for the money that would be raised by 'rolling back' the tax cut on the 'wealthy'.

He mentions it every time he needs to explain how new programs would be financed. "If we didn't give a tax cut to the most wealthy we could do this and that and the other thing too"

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Dagny 0]

Quote

But neither candidate answered how they were going to cut the deficit in half in five years - not even Kerry's tax would come close to doing that.

True. And no matter who gets elected, I'll be interested to see how they affect the deficit during their tenure in office given their promises to reduce it within the next five years.

Okay, what did you think of Bush's proposed social security plan to allow people private control of some of their personal assets?

Honestly, I'd rather see the money remain in the social security fund as long as their is some guarantee that when I retire, I'll get what I've earned. If that can't be promised, then I want my money back and I'll take care of myself, thank you very much.

Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic.
-Salvador Dali

[billvon 2,991]

>Okay, what did you think of Bush's proposed social security plan to
>allow people private control of some of their personal assets?

I've never understood that. "Social security" is, to me, just that - not a way to live well, or have a good retirement, just some security that you won't starve if your 401k investments tank because of a stock market crash. Taking some of those assets and putting them in a form that will tank along with your 401k seems like a bad idea. If anything, I'd start rolling back SS benefits in the far future (i.e. so as not to screw the people who have been paying into it for 30 years) and make it clear that people will have to save for their own retirements. Make it clear that SS will keep you in Ramen noodles but that's about it, and let people use the money they save to invest for their own retirements.

That doesn't solve the short term problem of funding SS for the baby boomers, of course - I don't know what to do about that.

[lawrocket 3]

Yes, quade, even the aviation laws are for social engineering.

Want people to fly? You can't have them concerned about the lack of controls over airplanes. We all know that plane crashes kill. So, regaulte it and make it as safe as possible. This not only is good for the safety of those on the ground, but also in the air. This leads to a trust of aviation, which means more people will fly.

Sure, there is no law against going out and killing yourself in an airplane. But it seems to me that the FAA and TSA are social engineering, too - give the appearance of safety and caring, and hopefully stop a terrorist or two.

Regarding marriage, there are some sound efficiencies that come with it. I think the issue was that people who were married were getting taxed mroe than those who were not, and the gubment wants to repair that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.