"There are some things money can't buy... but for everything else there's the United States Government."

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

Debates, despite their granted public nature, are still privately run. All stations stop showing their programming, forfeiting their ad revenue and show this.

If ANYONE crossed a police-taped line(which is there to stop protestors, and antagonists), they would be arrested for doing so.

I don't see their names on the candidates in the debate, making them a third party illigally entering the debate. And, by coincidence, they were there to attack the people who had a right to be there.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

yes but without the media hyping up the preferred candidates' debates, it wouldn't be an issue. 3rd party candidates need to keep pushing against the current system.

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

I agree, Nador wasn't allowed on many ballots because they stonewalled him and because of unfair ballot rules.

Anyone and everyone has a right to run if they pay their fee.

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

the media didn't find this newsworthy..thats what i find strange

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

While 3rd party canadiates do have a bad rep., this guy should be commited.

For instance, the call back of troops from across the globe(assuming the time table is 4 years) would more than likely have vast repercussions due to the power vaccum created. In 8 years maybe, but not sooner.

Same thing in Iraq, withdrawing within a presidential term would create a similar vaccum, which is presicisely what the deposed would wait for. Again, maybe in 8 years.

I agree on his partriot act stance, it needs to be dialed down.

His economic plan to perform de-regulation has more chance than not to backfire severely. Opening a wide free market is going to put the American workers out of work faster. There is far too much cheap labor in other countries that will work for nearly pennies on the dollar compared to an american salary. Big buisness will leave this country for meanial labor if the flood gates were set loose.

His comparison to Japan is flawed, he makes the assumption that the Japanese society as a whole functions in the exact manner we do. Yes, victims need to get restituion, but offenders(barring a social revolution) are going to still require punishment beyond a slap on the wrist and paying fees to the victims.

Deregulating pharmacutical companies won't help health care costs. Policy won't make people take better care of themselves, which is why costs are where they are.

Immigration is great, unfettered immigration is a huge problem. There needs to be process to allow immigrants entry to the US, get them on taxible incomes(most are not), get them into taxable property, and require participation in education programmes to bring them up to at least a GED level.

I do agree that affirative action is silly and merit speaks more than anything else.

As long as marriage grants tax breaks, its a federal issue. If you read this thread you know my take

War on drugs is a touchy subject. Yes, some people are probably harassed, wrongly accussed, or even jailed. Yes, dealers of more leathal drugs are also caught. Marginalizing the use of marijuana to a taxable luxurey would be okay as long as methods of detection via medical means by police officers(like breathalizers).

More guns, more crime. States may have stricter gun laws than others, but how do they enforce them when the industry skates by without regulation? His numbers are also skewed. He stated in 1999 824 people from accidents, how many died by intent?

So thats my take

What we need is a "Build-a-candidate", where everyone votes on platforms and those that win get built into the canadidate.

haha good idea

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

Seriously, we elect officals that only fit a small number of pigeon holes that we think is right. Why should we not instead elect our policies, and allow the electoral process of officials to be conducted more in the tradidtional buisness sense? Sort of a country wide interview, that way officals can speak to the elected policies and how they will carry those out instead of becoming ephmeral talking heads blowing smoke every which way to get votes.

Jon Stewart faces up to Bill O'Reilly Quip
Demographics have entered the fray after FOX News Channel's Bill O'Reilly threw some on-air punches at Jon Stewart, whose audience on Comedy Central, O'Reilly insisted, consists of "stoned slackers."

Not true, reports Nielsen Media Research. In fact, Stewart's The Daily Show viewers are better educated than O'Reilly watchers and Stewart's fan base is likelier than O'Reilly's to have completed four years of college.
http://people.aol.com/people/articles/0 ... 08,00.html

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

I love Stewart... Hate O'reily (Ludacris fan)

Bob the Host: ...Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
Bush: You know, Bob, I don't know...I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage. And the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution...
Kerry: We're all God's children, Bob, and I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice.

-it would have been more respectful for kerry to keep cheney's daughter's name out of the public spotlight and just say, "There are openly gay people whom you care about Mr. President. Ask them if they think homosexuality is a choice," or something to that extent, which it appears was the point he was trying to make.

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

You know, I just don't like George Bush as a person. He comes across so cocky. Like, he can say whatever he wants and it doesn't matter.

I was really turned off by the fact that he wouldn't commit to not appointing a judge who would overturn Roe v. Wade. You know that means he would appoint a judge that would not support Roe v. Wade. He didn't even answer the question.

Also, President Bush says he wants to reduce the number of abortions (which I think everyone wants), but he offers no realistic way of achieving this goal.

Almost everything out of his mouth rubs me the wrong way. I don't even live in the U.S and I want so badly for him to lose.

i dont dislike oreilly (like i do hannity or limbaugh). he's a great orator, and he is always well equipped with tons of facts and sources. but i do disagree with almost everything he ever says.

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

Actually he did answer the question. He stated that he would not apply a litmus test for a judge. Perhaps being from canada you aren't aware of what that terms means. Basically during the mid 70's to present, many of the judges were chosen because of what their position on various issues were, whether it was an attempt to make the court more conservative, liberal or balanced. The term "litmus test" of judges became a common phrase to describe those judges who met the expectations of what the current President wanted with respect to the balance of the Supreme court.

Bush stated he would not use a litmus test on judges, instead choosing them based on their qualifications, rather than their positions. I'm not sure how much I believe that really, but it's a far cry from Kerry who admitted he will attempt to influence the balance of the Supreme court to maintain his views.

He evaded the question. And as the President, he should protect women and their right to choose.

Translation: He didn't give the answer you wanted which is to say he would support justices who are Pro-choice.

You are so naive if you don't believe Bush would appoint justices that would promote his beliefs. Just because he won't admit it in public (which is the case) doesn't mean he has no criteria regarding ideology in the judges he would like to appoint.

If you think about it, he even admitted he has a litmus test for the judges he would appoint. He will not appoint a judge that supports slavery (ooohhh, I'm so impressed with his progressiveness) and he would not appoint a judge that does not support the term 'under god' in the pledge of allegiance (which is a clear ideological bias).

But I am almost touched by your naivity.

Also, Bush's saying he would not apply a litmus test means that theoretically, yes he would appoint a judge that would overturn Roe v Wade. So a straight answer would be,

"Yes, if I felt they were the 'best' for the job, I would appoint a judge that opposes Roe v Wade"

Bob the Host: Mr. President I want to go back to something Senator Kerry said earlier tonight and ask a follow-up of my own. He said, and this will be a new question to you, he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I'd ask you directly would you like to?

Bush: What he's asking me is will I have a litmus test for my judges. And the answer is no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution. But I'll have no litmus tests.

-----------------------
which is basically:
-----------------------

Bob the Host: Would you like to see situation A?
Bush: The real question is situation B. And no I don't want to do situation B.

-----------------------
Hello, Mr. Bush. Answer Question A plsthx.
-----------------------

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

Here is some funny sh*t: http://dubyaspeak.com/audio.shtml
I've posted it before but some of you might not have seen this website.

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

Hi, I realize English in Canada may be a second language, but you don't have to go about insulting my intelligence.

You stated he evaded the question. He did not, he stated very simply that he would not have a litmus test for his judges. IE: He would not chose them based on their position on the issues. I also stated that I doubted he would actually stick to that claim.

As far as judging them by criteria, again you are going back to the litmus test. He stated he would not do it, you are claiming he would. I am not sure if he would or not, but I'm certainly not going to attempt to pull a Nostradamus on the issue. My gut says he would have certain criteria, but knowing the way in which judges are confirmed, he would have to pick and choose his battles very carefully, thus diminishing the likelyhood that he could select judges based on many issues. What is naive is thinking a President can just pick a judge based on the issues and then shoehorn them into the Supreme court.



His direct response:


Now I'm not really sure how relevant your claim that he not supporting a judge that supports slavery would be a litmus test, since that would also be against the constitution and in line with the practice of supporting only judges who interpret the constitution.

The second part however has merit as President Bush did say, “We need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench,” This is most definitely a litmus test for a judge.

I am amused that you think I am naive. I don't think you are naive, I just think that you didn't bother to read what I wrote before posting.

You know...the woman who caused the Roe vs Rade thing is pro-life now right?

_________________
Dark is banned from ever touching my computer again.

kailyn may have missed my post up there, but Bob the Host didn't ask about litmus tests. he asked, in effect, "Would you like to overturn Roe v Wade Mr. Bush?"

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

The question was not if he would use a litmus test. Did you even watch the debate?

Let me try to explain myself again.

President Bush would appoint a judge that opposes Roe v. Wade. All he had to say was:

"I would appoint a judge that opposes Roe v. Wade, but that doesn't mean that I will." Because he WOULD.

Secondly, is a person's right to bodily integrity not included in your constitution? A person's right to decide how their body is used is not covered in your constitution?? So you can force a person to use their body in a way that they do not want to (in this case, for pregnancy)? I think that this is a constitutional matter and that judges have a responsibility to protect a woman's right to bodily integrity.

Finally, no, I did not know the woman involved in Roe v. Wade was pro-choice, but I assume you do not decide the rights of woman based on this woman's whims.

DELETED BECAUSE I WAS FUCKING STUPID