and I think Bush is great!

04.10.04, 14:33
he helped to catch Sadam, who tortured his people, even little children.
    • Gość: student Re: Yeah and I think Bush is the greatest! IP: *.warszawa.sdi.tpnet.pl 04.10.04, 22:26
      What do you think?
      • vvalentyna Re: Yeah and I think Bush is the greatest! 04.10.04, 23:00
        Yes, and he brought prosperity to his people.Economy is doing very well.
        • Gość: bubble Re: Yeah and I think Bush is the greatest! IP: *.client.comcast.net 17.10.04, 21:58
          I wouldn't say that economy is doing very well. It's still hard to get a
          descent job these days in US and some people are still getting laid off. You
          need to know a lot of important people in order to find a good job. But it's
          also true that the economy is going up yet still has a long way to go. Anyway,
          I like Mr.Bush because he's trying to put his country on its feet. He's
          definitely getting my vote next month. I'm not worried. He'll win.
        • Gość: gp Re: Yeah and I think Bush is the greatest! IP: 212.244.195.* 25.10.04, 11:14
          This "prosperity" is a result of a record budget deficit and Fed interest rates
          lower than inflation, so it's clear this "prosperity" is artificial, pumped
          thanks to those tricks. Soon the rates will have to be lifted and the deficit
          will have to be lowered and it will cause serious problems.
    • vvaligora Re: and I think Bush is great! 14.10.04, 07:21
      No napewno lepszy od Howarda, Kwasniaka, ale Blaira NIE
    • Gość: WB I know Bush is great! IP: 216.233.78.* 14.10.04, 14:27
      Dear vvalentyna ,

      President Bush won a clear victory on substance, style and credibility in the
      final debate - showing that he's the candidate who "finishes strong." The
      President spoke with clarity, conviction and compassion about the most
      important issues facing our country.

      On issue after issue, he showed Americans that he shares their values and
      priorities. He revealed just how far out of the mainstream Kerry's record
      lies on abortion, gay marriage, immigration, taxes, health care and fiscal
      discipline.

      John Kerry showed how far he's willing to go to deceive the American people
      about this record when he said "I've actually passed 56 individual bills that
      I've personally written." The fact is that he has only been the lead sponsor
      of 5 bills and 4 resolutions that have become law.

      The most revealing moments:

      Kerry believes education is unrelated to the economy - this is a fundamental
      misunderstanding of how individuals achieve the American Dream.
      President Bush believes that no child should be left behind when it comes to
      the quality of education she or he can get.
      A good education is the foundation for opportunity, prosperity and success.
      On immigration, John Kerry said, "we need an earned legalization program for
      people who have been here a long time." This amnesty proposal stands in
      contrast to the President's temporary worker program.
      President Bush revealed John Kerry's tendency to confuse a litany of complaints
      with a plan. John Kerry demonstrated that he didn't have a plan and he
      resorted to foreign policy attacks, because he does not have an agenda for
      America.

      • imperfectwife Re: I know Bush is great! 14.10.04, 18:45
        It looks like you are a hillbilly, who dosn't recognize that war in Iraq was
        unjustified and that in all 3 debates Bush only attacked Kerry's record and
        mostly didn't answer a quastion.
        How does Act No child left behind work in practice? answer - child is waiting
        for school bus at 5.05am and coming back from school a 6.30pm, because there is
        no money for extra buses, parents have to pay for school activites, for SAT tests.
        "President spoke with clarity..." is this a joke?
        • kropisia Re: I know Bush is great! 18.10.04, 00:01
          Yeah, really!!
          "The president spoke with clarity." ????????????

          This person must come from the Dick Cheney school of "thought," where even if
          something has been shown to be false, just keep insisting that it's true (and
          maybe enough people will believe your Big Lies to get elected (for the first
          time). Like Cheney insisting that there's a connection between Iraq and Al
          Qaeda, and that Iraq DOES have those weapons of mass destruction SOMEWHERE.
      • Gość: natalie27 Re: I know Bush is great! IP: *.va.shawcable.net 14.10.04, 23:58
        > President Bush won a clear victory on substance, style and credibility in the
        > final debate - showing that he's the candidate who "finishes strong." The
        > President spoke with clarity, conviction and compassion about the most
        > important issues facing our country.

        I think you are full of beans. Did you actually watch Bush's speech? This was
        his last chance to prove to the Americans that he was worth voting for and yet
        he blew it again! He got on people's nerves by smirking, looking annoyed and
        bored out of his tree. Bad body language!... and that's only the beginning.
        Bush's debate failure lies in his inability to make himself understood by
        mixing up words or forgetting something. Bush,(aka IDIOT) confronted with ANY
        question is always trying REALLY HARD to think and come up with things to say
        but anytime he tries that, its a complete diasaster. His speeches are pathetic
        and everyone knows he's the worst debater/speaker the American nation has ever
        had in its history.
        In any case, if Bush wins this election, which he just might (hope not), this
        will be a testament to how f*** stupid the American public really is. He's
        probably the least qualified person ever to be nominated by a major party and
        the biggest disgrace for the American nation that is supposed to be built on
        trust and truth. The village idiot just doesn't fit in here. He didn't know how
        to run a company before, how is he going to run the country?

        a few more days till Nov. 2nd....




        There are two possibilities. Either George W. Bush is the dumbest, most
        incompetent, most utterly harebrained human ever to sit in the Oval Office, or
        he is some dazzling breed of Uberman fiend bent upon dominion over the earth.
        Either he's a total dimwitted dunderhead who c


        • Gość: natalie27 Re: I know Bush is great! IP: *.va.shawcable.net 14.10.04, 23:59
          I will finish this later...just got cut off. :)
          • Gość: WB Re: I know Bush is great! IP: 216.233.78.* 15.10.04, 03:51
            During the debate, the President mentioned Kerry's Liberal Record!!!
            John Kerry is trying to run from his twenty year liberal record but he can’t
            hide from his 98 votes to raise taxes, his six votes against banning partial-
            birth abortion or his big government health care plan. If that’s not enough to
            convince you Kerry deserves his ranking as the Senate’s most liberal member,
            check out Kerry’s record for yourself.

            Kerry’s Lifetime Liberal Vote Rating From Americans For Democratic Action Is
            Two Points Higher Than That Of Ted Kennedy. While Kennedy rates a 90 lifetime
            average, Kerry has a lifetime average of 92. (Americans For Democratic Action
            Website, www.adaction.org , Accessed 1/21/04)

            In 1991, Kerry Said: “I’m A Liberal And Proud Of It.” “‘I’m a liberal and
            proud of it. We will always believe in social justice,’ said Kerry, a Vietnam
            veteran touted as a potential presidential candidate.” (“Gee, There Were So
            Many In 1988,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 7/21/91)

            Nonpartisan National Journal Scored Kerry’s Votes Most Liberal In Senate For
            2003. (National Journal Website, “How They Measured Up,”
            nationaljournal.com, 2/27/04)

            Kerry Has Topped Liberal Charts Before. “Kerry has compiled a generally more
            liberal voting record. After winning election to the Senate in 1984, he ranked
            among the most-liberal senators during three years of his first term, according
            to National Journal’s vote ratings. In those years - 1986, 1988, and 1990 -
            Kerry did not vote with Senate conservatives a single time… Kerry had a perfect
            liberal rating on social issues during 10 of the 18 years in which he received
            a score, meaning that he did not side with conservatives on a single vote in
            those years. That included his 1996 vote, with 13 other Senate Democrats,
            against the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of
            states’ same-sex marriage laws.” (National Journal Website, “How They Measured
            Up,” nationaljournal.com, 2/27/04)
            In 2003, Kerry Voted With Ted Kennedy 93% Of The Time. (CQ Online,
            www.cq.com, Accessed 1/21/04)

            On CQ Key Votes, Kerry Voted 100% Of The Time With Ted Kennedy In 2003, 2001,
            1999, 1998, 1993, 1992, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, and 1985. (CQ Online,
            www.cq.com, Accessed 1/21/04)

            KERRY CALLED A LIBERAL BACK TO TOP
            Newsweek's Howard Fineman: "Basically He's A Massachusetts Liberal …"
            NEWSWEEK'S HOWARD FINEMAN: "[T]he big thing the President can do, whenever
            Kerry talks about taxes, is talk about Kerry's record. And that's what the
            President is going to spend the last three weeks of this campaign doing,
            talking about Kerry's Senate record, which has tons and tons and tons of votes
            for taxes for all kinds. Kerry is pretty much, with some exceptions - you know,
            he did vote for a balanced budget resolution a couple times and he did vote for
            welfare reform - but basically he's a Massachusetts liberal and that's what
            Bush is going to hit him with the last three weeks of the campaign."
            (MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 10/11/04)

            Washington Post's David Broder: "Kerry, Like Most Massachusetts Politicians,
            Has A Markedly Liberal Record. An Avowed Opponent Of The Death Penalty, He
            Opposes Gay Marriage But Supports Civil Unions, And Backs Abortion Rights And
            Restrictions On Guns." (David S. Broder, "Tight Race For A Divided Nation," The
            Washington Post, 3/3/04)

            National Journal: In 2003, Kerry "Consistently Took The Liberal View" On Social
            Issues And Foreign Policy. Kerry's heavy absenteeism in 2003 prevented him from
            getting scores on social issues & foreign policy. However, a "separate analysis
            showed that of the votes that Kerry cast in the two categories in which he did
            not receive scores in 2003 - social policy and foreign policy - he consistently
            took the liberal view within the Senate." (National Journal Website, "How They
            Measured Up," nationaljournal.com, 2/27/04)

            U.S. News & World Report: "Kerry's Voting Record Puts Him To The Left Of Most
            Senate Democrats." (Dan Gilgoff, "Resisting Labels," U.S. News & World Report,
            2/16/04)

            Joan Vennochi/Boston Globe Op-Ed: Kerry's Liberal Voting Record Is Clear. "The
            liberal voting record is there for everyone to see and interpret - on abortion,
            gay rights, taxes and national defense. Ultimately, Kerry will return to it,
            literally and figuratively, when he accepts his party's nomination in Boston,
            the liberal heart of Massachusetts." (Joan Vennochi, Op/Ed, "A Battle Of L-
            Words: 'Liar' Vs. 'Liberal'," The Boston Globe, 2/12/04)

            "'Look At National Journal Ratings - Kerry Is Way To The Left Of The American
            Mainstream,' Said Larry Sabato Of The University Of Virginia." (Kirk Victor, et
            al., "A Kerry Top 10," National Journal, 1/31/04)

            Dean Campaign On Kerry: "When It Was Popular To Be A Massachusetts Liberal, His
            Voting Record Was That." "Mr. Kerry's rival Democrats point to a series of
            shifting stands on issues…'When it was popular to be a Massachusetts liberal,
            his voting record was that,' said Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman. 'When
            it was popular to be for the Iraq war, he was for it. Now it's popular to be
            against it, and he's against it. This is a voting record that is a big
            vulnerability against Republicans in the general election. He's all over the
            place on this stuff.'" (Todd S. Purdum, "Rivals Mine Kerry Senate Years For
            Material To Slow Him Down," The New York Times, 1/25/04)

            United Press International: "Kerry, A Liberal On Social And Other Issues, Has
            Ted Kennedy In His Corner And Embodies The Liberal Spirit Of Massachusetts."
            (Martin Sieff, "Analysis: Kerry, Clark Head For N.H. Clash," United Press
            International, 1/20/04)

            The Associated Press: "Kerry's Liberal Massachusetts Lineage Can Be Troublesome
            At Times." "In a delicate balancing act, Kerry said he's thrilled to have the
            ultimate Massachusetts liberal - Sen. Edward Kennedy - campaign by his side in
            his race for the White House. But he carefully distanced himself from Dukakis,
            the last Bay Stater to seek - and lose - the presidency. And that's not the
            only way Kerry's liberal Massachusetts lineage can be troublesome at times."
            (Lolita C. Baldor, "Kerry Draws Contrast With Fellow Mass. Politician Dukakis,"
            The Associated Press, 9/12/03)


            and so on..........

            • i.p.freely Re: Viper aka WB 15.10.04, 13:02
              Your sorry man GWB is changing the facts to fit his positions - talking about
              FLIP-FLOP, huh!!!!!
              First, there was a talk about mushroom cloud, piles and piles of deadly weapons,
              production faciliteis etc - you remember the 'spiel' leading up to the war.

              Now comes Charles A. Duelfer with his report (published the other week) and
              boy, are we shocked!!!
              Iraq had destroyed its stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction a DOZEN YEARS
              BEFORE WE INVADED THE BLOODY COUNTRY!!!!!

              What we found so awesomely shocking was that SADAM WAS TELLING THE TRUTH!!!!
              and your man LIED ALL ALONG!!!! If that does not shake man's faith badly I
              don't know what will. For if you can't trust Sadam, not the least evil wretch
              ever to stalk the earth, to lie, what can you believe in???? The report also
              makes it clear that this was not some passing aberration on part od Sadam. He
              became positively possessed by a demonic urge to tell the truth.
            • kropisia Re: I know Bush is great! 17.10.04, 23:56
              Regarding Kerry's "98 votes to raise taxes," an independent website elaborates
              on why that is simply not the case (it's the website that Cheney was ATTEMPTING
              to recommend to the audience during his debate w/ Edwards, but famously he
              called it factcheck.com, not .org, and those curious enough to check found
              themselves going to an anti-Bush, George Soros website (that rare gung-ho
              capitalist who despises Bush)):
              www.factcheck.org/article247.html
              And as far as raising taxes goes, all of Bush's plans for his next term have a
              price-tag that's about a trillion dollars higher than Kerry's, so it seems
              inevitable that taxes would have to be raised in a Bush term 2 in order to pay
              for all of his no-doubt brilliant ideas.



    • Gość: bolo Bush.....it IP: *.crowley.pl 14.10.04, 18:19
      stawiajac na niego podziwiasz buraka.
      Poznaj go dokładniej zanim zaczniesz wypisywać opinie na forum
    • Gość: Trener Walentynki Re: and I think Bush is great! IP: *.vline.pl / *.rev.vline.pl 15.10.04, 09:25
      Walentynko to wielki sukces że już myślisz, naprawdę wspaniale. Teraz zacznij cwiczyć logikę i za parę lat będziesz w stanie sformułować proste myśli.
    • Gość: WB Joke on good day. IP: 216.233.76.* 15.10.04, 13:50
      John Kerry’s a little carried away. Today he blamed the eruption of Mt. St.
      Helen on President Bush. He said when he’s president, he’ll hold a summit of
      all the volcanoes in the world, "Mt. Fuji, Mt. Etna, Mt. Vesuvius…and build a
      coalition of volcanoes. They will pass a volcano test.”
      • i.p.freely Re: Aren't we jocular today, he he he 15.10.04, 14:59
        Just in case you didn't notice my friend, the joke was on us. The joker, from
        the onset of the campaign, has treated Kerry like a terrorist. Kept
        unrelenting, harsh attacks (whether based in reality or not) on him, all in
        effort to keep attention away from himself. With GWB record this makes perfect
        sense, focus on the challenger so you don't have to defend your fuck-ups. Who
        knows, maybe that strategy would have paid off if not for the nettlesome truth
        that keeps seeping out. One day it will all errupt like the vulcano in your
        joke.

        Can't win with democrats? Lets try the OLD RECEPE again - the "L" word. Hang it
        around Kerry's neck like a dog bone. LIBERAL!, LIBERAL!, LIBERAL! As oppse to
        what - CONSERVATIVE???
        Where I used to live (Texas) the word CONSERVATIVE was a nicer word for bigots
        and racists. "Nice guys" from KKK call themselves 'conservative'. I would like
        some accountability in our officials not LABELS!!!! They don't mean a thing.
        • Gość: wj Re: Aren't we jocular today, he he he IP: *.nyc.rr.com 15.10.04, 21:01
          I do like your style. The substance bothers me a lot.
          Some time ago Sen. Kerry said that he was a proud liberal but when
          Bush pointed to that he rejected it as a meaningless label. Go figure.
          • i.p.freely Re: Liberal - what does it mean?? 15.10.04, 21:24
            liberal (adjective) -
            1. tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

            liberal (noun) -
            1. a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the
            protection of civil liberties
            Synonyms: progressive

            2. a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating
            markets


            liberal (adjective satellite) -
            1. showing or characterized by broad-mindedness
            "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal
            newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
            Synonyms: broad, large-minded, tolerant

            2. not literal
            "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the
            poem"
            Synonyms: free, loose

            3. given or giving freely
            "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful
            compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is
            loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her
            fond and openhanded grandfather"
            Synonyms: big, bighearted, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, handsome, giving,
            openhanded

            4. having political or social views favoring reform and progress



            CONSERVATIVE

            conservative (adjective) -
            1. resistant to change

            conservative (noun) -
            1. a person who has conservative ideas or opinions
            Synonyms: conservativist

            conservative (adjective satellite) -
            1. conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class
            "a bourgeois mentality"
            Synonyms: bourgeois, materialistic

            2. unimaginatively conventional
            "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-gray world of business"-
            Newsweek
            Synonyms: button-down, buttoned-down

            3. avoiding excess
            "a conservative estimate"
            Synonyms: cautious

            4. opposed to liberal reforms


            Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

            _______________




          • Gość: natalie27 Re: Aren't we jocular today, he he he IP: *.va.shawcable.net 15.10.04, 21:34
            Wasn't Kerry always a liberal, wj? I must be missing your point but he has
            always been a liberal, he knows it and he is proud of it. His whole compaign is
            about a democratic/liberal/left wing/ leadership of your country.
            Bush and Kerry accuse each other of many things and when Kerry called
            Bush "dumb as a doorknob", Bush didn't know what to say. You go figure.
            • Gość: emka Re: Aren't we jocular today, he he he IP: *.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl 16.10.04, 15:46
              Poor Valentina , don't you know that it's politically incorrect to praise Bush
              on GW forum? Have you ever read this newspaper? They decided long ago that the
              only candidate worth voting for is Kerry. Haven't you noticed that? Poor child.
              And yet whatever they say and know and want to prove it's Bush who will win. No
              doubt about it.
              God bless America and George W. Bush!
              • Gość: w.j. natalie, the politics is a little more complicated IP: *.nyc.rr.com 16.10.04, 16:27
                Once the "liberal" label sticks to Kerry, he can forget about winning the
                election and he knows that. That's why he's running away from his congressional
                record.
                That's why he is not running as a liberal candidate.
                Mr. Bush, being dumb as a doorknob has more class than Mr. Kerry and his
                entourage. For example read Mr. Kerry's answer to Schiffer's question about
                marrying a strong woman and compare it to Bush' answer.
                Isn't Mr. Kerry saying: I married a cash cow, but let me tell you about my mother?
                SCHIEFFER: We've come, gentlemen, to our last question. And it occurred to me as
                I came to this debate tonight that the three of us share something. All three of
                us are surrounded by very strong women. We're all married to strong women. Each
                of us have two daughters that make us very proud.
                I'd like to ask each of you, what is the most important thing you've learned
                from these strong women?
                KERRY: Well, I guess the president and you and I are three examples of lucky
                people who married up.
                And some would say maybe me more so than others.
                But I can take it.
                Can I say, if I could just say a word about a woman that you didn't ask about,
                but my mom passed away a couple years ago, just before I was deciding to run.
                And she was in the hospital, and I went in to talk to her and tell her what I
                was thinking of doing.
                And she looked at me from her hospital bed and she just looked at me and she
                said, "Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity. "Those are the three words
                that she left me with.
                And my daughters and my wife are people who just are filled with that sense of
                what's right, what's wrong.
                They also kick me around. They keep me honest. They don't let me get away with
                anything. I can sometimes take myself too seriously. They surely don't let me do
                that.
                And I'm blessed, as I think the president is blessed, as I said last time. I've
                watched him with the first lady, who I admire a great deal, and his daughters.
                He's a great father. And I think we're both very lucky.

                • Gość: natalie27 Re: wj, the politics is a little more compli IP: *.va.shawcable.net 16.10.04, 19:42
                  wj....I watched all that on TV. Every bit of it...no need to send it.
                  God Bless America without Bush! Hope the Americans have enough common sense
                  that will prevail throughout the election.
                  Your idiot neigbors from north of the border want that too. Not that too many
                  of you even know we exist...
                  WJ, if Bush is reelected, you know what I feel like saying, don't you?

                  I will keep that to myself.

                  btw. Michael Moore starting another project on the corruption within
                  pharmaceutical companies. Another eye opener for Americans about something
                  everyone has known about for a long time. Another interesting topic for
                  discussion. Where I live we have some 64 drug stores catering to the Americans
                  who do cross border shopping loading up on their priscription drugs. They save
                  some 60% or more of what they would normally have to pay in their country. We
                  have busloads of you guys come to buy prescription drugs in Canada. If I were
                  in their shoes I would do exactly the same thing, no doubt!

                  Any comments on Bush/Kerry or the price of drugs in US?
                  • Gość: wj Re: wj, the politics is a little more compli IP: *.nyc.rr.com 16.10.04, 20:34
                    dear natalie the issue is not that simple or rather simplistic as you suggest.
                    Allowing the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada is not a solution
                    to the problem and Kerry knows it. More so it scares the living daylights out of
                    canadian government.
                    As you know Canada imports the drugs from US at the preferential prices.
                    If the wide spread reimportation takes place, Canada will loose the ability to
                    buy drugs in US cheaply. Soon you'll see the canadian authorities banning
                    the export of imported american drugs. Canadian government has a duty to protect
                    the canadian consumer not american.
                    Here is the link to a column by Collin Levey, Wall Street Journal staff writer.
                    www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/19969.htm
                    Please note that flu vaccine has to be imported to US because american companies
                    refuse to make it. Do you know why?
                    • Gość: natalie27 Re: wj, the politics is a little more compli IP: *.va.shawcable.net 16.10.04, 21:38
                      why?
                      Because they spent 200 billion dollars on the war in Iraq and they ran out of $
                      to protect their own people with simple vaccinations? OK. seriously...why?
                      Bush is a captive of the pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately, many say that
                      neither Bush nor Kerry have focused enough on health care issues.Kerry proposes
                      medicare for all of you guys but my guess is the pharmaceutical companies will
                      keep their huge overhead in regards to drug prices and I just can't see this
                      change any time soon. Or at all for that matter. As you have heard me say
                      before " money talks, bulls... walks". The corporate business in America will
                      stay the way it is now and yes, we do benefit from that only because our
                      governmnet sets price ceilings for medications....with US help or not. Our
                      medicare system is quite different from yours and we rely on generic drugs that
                      are an option to us in most cases. I don't think the Americans would like
                      generic competition, would they?
                      Another thing, I have just found out in regards to "re-importation" that your
                      senate is passing a bill (S 2328) that authorizes the drug reimportation from
                      countries such as Canada where government controls keep retail prices far below
                      U.S. rates. The bill would punish pharmaceutical companies that try to stump
                      such competition by limiting supplies to foreign countries that sell drugs for
                      less. We buy bulk from you guys and it translates into millions of dollars to
                      the American pharmaceutical companies and I don't think they want to part with
                      that.

                      in any case, I have to fly....lots to do today.
                      :)


                      • Gość: wj Re: wj, the politics is a little more compli IP: *.nyc.rr.com 17.10.04, 07:15
                        dear natalie that was a simple question. Why do american drug manufacturers
                        refuse to make a flu vaccine?.
                        PS. You haven't read Levey's piece.
                        • i.p.freely Re: wj, the politics is a little more compli 17.10.04, 18:09
                          Levey's piece? Would you be kind to provide a link?

                          Why do american drug makers refuse to make a flue vaccine or other
                          nonprofitable Rx?
                          1. Low profit margin first and foremost.
                          Producing Viagra or Cialis brings a looot more moolah in a lot less time.
                          2. Fear of being tangled up in litigation without an end if something goes
                          wrong.
                          • Gość: w.j. Re: wj, the politics is a little more compli IP: *.nyc.rr.com 17.10.04, 18:26
                            The link:
                            www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/19969.htm
                            i.p.freely napisał:
                            > Why do american drug makers refuse to make a flue vaccine or other
                            > nonprofitable Rx?
                            > 1. Low profit margin first and foremost.
                            > Producing Viagra or Cialis brings a looot more moolah in a lot less time.
                            > 2. Fear of being tangled up in litigation without an end if something goes
                            > wrong.

                            There are plenty of american drug manufacturers making generics at low profit
                            margin. The cost of the pill a vaccine is next to nothing. It is the litigation.
                            Congress had the opportunity to fix that problem but refused under a heavy
                            lobbying by trial lawyers.
                            • i.p.freely Re: Thanks for the link, wj 17.10.04, 19:13
                              I don't see much in the litigation terms as far as the article is concerned.
                              Nonetheless a very important issue.

                              So it goes back to "abacus" my friend.

                              <snip> And the "astronomical" prices seem like pocket change next to what the
                              same people spend on lattes and impulse purchases. Celebrex is considered
                              an "expensive" drug at $2 a day, but for an arthritis sufferer looking for
                              something beyond aspirin or motrin, it's a pretty cheap "miracle."

                              This is VERY CYNICAL statement and I am sure done by someone that does not have
                              to worry about the price of a "miracle drug" like Zocor, Metoprolol, Lasix -
                              those are actually not that expensive for someone that is not on fixed income.
                              Majority of our elders can not afford lattes, my friend, unless they belong to
                              the 1% of the priviliged geezers. Those people I am not worried about.

                              In contrast, a bag of Xigris goes for $10,000.- per bag, that could save your
                              life from fatal sepsis? (you will need about 7 to 10 of them during the course
                              of therapy). I am sure Mr.Levey would shit the moment he saw it on his bill.

                              How much of that $10,000.- goes to recoup the cost of R&D (research and
                              development) and how much lines the pockets of the CEO and friendly politicians.

                              Gues who has more money to be speaking louder out there? I am sure it is not
                              the geezer with the $1,200./month SS check and $400/month drug bill from his
                              friendly, neighborhood parmacy.
                              • Gość: wj Re: Thanks for the link, wj IP: *.nyc.rr.com 17.10.04, 20:42
                                Your points are all valid and worth discussion but... you've missed the core
                                problem. That is Canada being a 30 million nation cannot import enough drugs
                                to export them to a 300 million nation at preferential prices.
                                The drug manufacturers simply refuse to sell at low price. This will inevitably
                                lead to higher prices for Canadian consumers.
                                If re-importing from Canada is a solution to the skyrocketing prices of drugs in
                                US, Senator Kerry is a demagogue and President Bush is a rabbit in the headlights.

                                I don't think Levey's statement is cynical. We are not talking about 10 thousand
                                dollars therapy. $2 per day for a medicine is less than a pack of smokes and
                                almost what a cup of coffee costs in Starbucks.

                                Nobody has a real solution to the problem and nobody wants it solved.
                                It is a useful election issue for both sides.
                        • Gość: natalie27 simple question IP: *.va.shawcable.net 17.10.04, 23:12
                          Yes, it is a simple question, wj, but it was NOT your article that explained
                          it. US ran out of an ordinary vaccine because of mismanagement and total chaos.
                          If anyone at all should run out of something like that, it certainly shouldn't
                          be your country. You guys have enmough $ for small stuff like that (well,
                          relatively small if compared with other recent expenses...) It was overlooked
                          and poorely planned. Nothing more to it.
                          As for the reimportation issue and drug cost in US, I think the Americans
                          created that mess themselves and they have to sort it out themselves. I think
                          one should keep in mind that it's illegal for the Americans to do prescription
                          drugs cross border shopping and if the Americans have been so worried about it,
                          why didn't they nip it in the bud when it had started a long time ago. They
                          know how hard it is for many seniors to budget themselves in order to scrounge
                          up enough money for life saving medications. They worry about us letting the
                          terrorists through our borders while they are totally oblivious to having their
                          seniors do illegal shopping here in Canada. I mean, let's just face it, if I
                          were in their shoes, I sure as hell would do exactly the same thing, especially
                          as no one has ever been sent to court over this. I just can't see this being
                          very important to the Americans after all. Mind you, a whole pile of drugs is
                          dispensed through mail and that will be almost impossible to stop.

                          Bush and Kerry are running pretty close. ....don't like it...hmmmmmm

                          :)
                          • Gość: wj Re: simple question IP: *.nyc.rr.com 18.10.04, 05:12
                            natalie, once again you've failed to understand what the problem is.
                            Just try to read this time. Ypu can learn something.
                            news.ft.com/cms/s/1138adf6-2076-11d9-af19-00000e2511c8.html
                            PS. I do like your passionate style.
                            • Gość: natalie27 Re: simple question IP: *.va.shawcable.net 19.10.04, 00:51
                              Look, wj, there IS no problem. We have it in our constitution..."medicare for
                              all", there is no immediate danger of running out of meds in Canada. See, the
                              Americans must be making some kind of profit by selling their drugs to the
                              Canadians. Either that or they wouldn't bother selling them to us. Why? Because
                              all your drugs are paid for by one source and therefore there is no competition
                              on the demand side. Soooooo..., if there is a demand here in Canada, they HAVE
                              TO sell it to us at the government price.
                              You are saying all the Americans eventually will have to buy from us and that's
                              posssible but I still don't see the harm. If the price wasn't high enough, they
                              wouldn't sell it. You think they will eventually lose money over "cycling"
                              their own medications...well, I don't buy it either. I think it's dumb to say
                              that all those companies are tangled in outrageous costs of pioneering new
                              drugs. That will ALL come out in the open after Michael Moore's next
                              documentary.WE ALL KNOW that some Big CEOs all over your country want a chunk
                              of the profit and that's all there is to it. Corruption,greed, etc.

                              Another thing I was wondering about: WHY, in God's name do you want to cycle
                              them through a price control? If you want price controls, then push for price
                              controls. Get Bush off his sleazy butt and make him do something about it.

                              What you guys have is verging on extortion and I don't know of any other
                              country that would charge so much!

                              Another question..read this:

                              "Mayors and governors from North Dakota to Alabama are helping their citizens
                              get Canadian drugs by mail. Such purchases are technically illegal, but so far,
                              the federal government has declined to prosecute." (from your excerpt)
                              Why isn't the US government doing anything about it?
                              I will tell you what I think. The US gov. knows they are as corrupt as the
                              pharmaceutical companies and investigating this will only open a huge can of
                              worms. More scandals, more problems.
                              Canadians will look after Canadians first before selling everything out to the
                              Americans. We come first, believe it or not.The general sentiment here is very
                              anti- American ( esp. after the war with Iraq) and this just won't happen.


                              What do you think? Can you give me a piece of YOUR passionate take on this.
                              :)


                              • Gość: wj Re: simple question IP: *.nyc.rr.com 19.10.04, 03:20
                                Aren't you stubborn?
                                dear natalie this is my last attempt to make you understand the issue.
                                Canada is not going to run out of drugs. Canada will run out of affordable drugs
                                for Canadians. Michael Moore does not make documentaries.
                                So long.
                                • Gość: natalie27 Re: simple question IP: *.va.shawcable.net 19.10.04, 06:16

                                  We will never run out of affordable drugs due to our governmnet price control
                                  policy (I mentioned that-stubbornly- about 10 times already). The Americans
                                  have been buying drugs from us for many years. It has never affected us one way
                                  or another.It never will.

                                  > Aren't you stubborn?

                                  Nope. Just fell out of the Stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.

                                  PS. Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" won the Oscar for best documentary.
                                  He does not make documentaries? ....
              • kropisia Re: Aren't we jocular today, he he he 18.10.04, 00:16
                Please quit trying to construct yourself as being a conservative victim
                of "politically correct" liberals who do not tolerate differing viewpoints. I
                might not agree with you, but by all means you have the right to say whatever
                is on your mind. I think the connotation of "politically correct" is long
                overdue for reconsideration, since post-9/11 Americans have constantly had
                to "watch what they say" (as Ari Fleischer warned us) and toe the line,
                otherwise we'd be accused of providing aid and comfort to the terrorists
                (presumably the kind helping Saddam with those non-existent WMDs, right?). The
                Bush Administration, and his Good Citizen watchdogs are the ones who are quite
                intolerant of dissent and questioning (thus, Bush's remarkable avoidance of any
                real, unscripted contact with anyone who might have a critical question or
                comment regarding his policies).

                As far as your "God bless America" goes, I have a few questions:

                - are you asking or demanding that God do this blessing?
                - are you referring to North America, South America, the Americas as a whole,
                or just the United States of America?
                - Do you think that God should bless America more than he does other
                countries? What about Poland? What about Canada? Should God bless American
                liberals, too? What about non-Christian US citizens?

                Why are you so certain that Bush will win?? Do you know something that the
                rest of us do not??


        • kropisia Re: Aren't we jocular today, he he he 17.10.04, 23:41
          Yeah, that's so true about Dubya labeling Kerry a liberal (and "hanging it
          around Kerry's neck" and hoping that simply attaching that word to Kerry will
          do all the work of actually convincing people to vote for him). I'm not really
          opposed to using such descriptive labels as "liberal" or "conservative" as long
          as the critic also has something substantive to say. So Kerry is a liberal!!
          And Bush is a conservative (and then some). People need to ask themselves what
          liberal and conservative values mean, how much the candidates' records and
          policy ideas & goals match up with their labels, and vote accordingly. Many
          people have liberal values but vote for the conservative candidates
          nonetheless, mistakenly believing that by doing so they are striking a blow
          against wealthy elites. Too many people really think of Bush as a down-to-
          earth rancher/cowboy type, but they forget that he comes from a wealthy
          establishment family, and is an oil tycoon, as is Cheney. Dubya's origins are
          every bit as much of the "elite" socioeconomic class as are Kerry's (actually,
          more so).

          Check out this article to see what I mean, and why people who shouldn't will be
          voting for Bush:

          A WAR AGAINST ELITES
          The America that will vote for Bush
          mondediplo.com/2004/02/04usa?var_recherche=thomas+frank
          • Gość: natalie27 Re: Aren't we jocular today, he he he IP: *.va.shawcable.net 18.10.04, 00:16


            As far as I am concerned labels don't mean anything but what in fact the
            candidates plan to do with the mess the country is in right now. That's the
            bottom line, I think.
            And yes, as you have rightly noticed, both guys are rich - very rich. Or as
            Kerry said poignantly "we both married up". Bush's dad is an oil tycoon while
            Kerry's wife - Mrs. Heinz Ketchup - is a billionaire herself. Must be niiiice...

            from your article:

            ..."President George Bush, a former Texas oilman, a Yale graduate...

            sounds nice but he made it barely with a weak "C" at the end...which doesn't
            change the fact that to me he is all foam, no beer.


    • Gość: so do I, so do I! Re: and I think Bush is great! IP: *.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl 16.10.04, 15:48
    • Gość: Bush rulez Re: and I think Bush is great! IP: *.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl 16.10.04, 17:42
      The man in the muddle
      Mark Steyn says that the nuanced John Kerry is a threat to peace. So it’s a
      good thing he’s going to lose the election New Hampshire

      These days the most devastating profiles of John Kerry are the puff pieces.
      Take, for example, last weekend’s New York Times magazine, in which Matt Bai
      attempted to argue that the Nuancy Boy is a kind of strategic genius who was on
      to this whole terror thing a decade before anybody else. That line of argument
      gets a little tiring, so midway through Mr Bai included this relaxing
      interlude:





      A row of Evian water bottles had been thoughtfully placed on a nearby table.
      Kerry frowned.

      ‘Can we get any of my water?’ he asked Stephanie Cutter, his communications
      director, who dutifully scurried from the room. I asked Kerry, out of sheer
      curiosity, what he didn’t like about Evian.

      ‘I hate that stuff,’ Kerry explained to me. ‘They pack it full of minerals.’

      ‘What kind of water do you drink?’ I asked, trying to make conversation.

      ‘Plain old American water,’ he said.

      ‘You mean tap water?’

      ‘No,’ Kerry replied deliberately. He seemed now to sense some kind of trap. I
      was left to imagine what was going through his head. If I admit that I drink
      bottled water, then he might say I’m out of touch with ordinary voters. But
      doesn’t demanding my own brand of water seem even more aristocratic? Then
      again, Evian is French — important to stay away from anything even remotely
      French.

      ‘There are all kinds of waters,’ he said finally. Pause. ‘Saratoga Spring.’
      This seemed to have exhausted his list. ‘Sometimes I drink tap water,’ he
      added.

      You can lead a horse-face to water, but you can’t make him drink. Not in this
      election. Imagine the strain of being unable to answer a simple question of
      beverage preference without flipping through the old mental Rolodex to
      calibrate the least politically damaging answer. Water, water everywhere, but
      gotta stop to think, to quote The Rime Of The Ancient Swift Boat Mariner. If
      George W. Bush happened to enjoy Evian, I don’t think he’d be averse to telling
      us. I certainly wouldn’t. I dislike France for geopolitical reasons, but I like
      the wine and the food. I like the women. I especially like the cute little girl
      bellhops in the Ruritanian uniforms at the Plaza Athenée. But John Kerry has
      invested so much in his imaginary friend in the Elysée Palace you can’t even
      ask him, ‘Hey, bud, what’ll you drink?’ without him wondering whether you’re
      impugning his patriotism. So ask a simple question and get a lot of, as it
      were, tap dancing.

      In the debates, it’s easier. He and John Edwards know they have to sound tough,
      so their writers generally provide them with a line pledging to ‘hunt down and
      kill the terrorists’. But it’s exhausting having to remember when to spit out
      the tough talk and not to get caught in some fake-o water-gate controversy, and
      so your concentration wanders and you get relaxed and then you say things like
      this:

      ‘We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus
      of our lives, but they’re a nuisance. As a former law-enforcement person, I
      know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal
      gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organised crime, to a level where it
      isn’t on the rise.’

      So the Senator has now made what was hitherto just a cheap crack from his
      opponents into formal policy: the Democrats are the September 10 party.

      The ‘I’ll hunt down and kill America’s enemies’ line was written for him and
      planted on his lips. The ‘It’s just a nuisance like prostitution’ line is his,
      and how he really thinks of the issue. What an odd analogy. Your average
      jihadist won’t take kindly to having his martyrdom operation compared with the
      decadent infidels’ sex industry, but the rest of us shouldn’t be that happy
      about it either. Kerry is correct in the sense that even if you dispatched
      every constable in the land to crack down on prostitution, there’d still be
      some pox-ridden whore somewhere giving someone a ride for ten bucks. But, on
      the other hand, applying the Kerry prostitute approach to terrorists would seem
      to leave rather a lot of them in place. In Boston, where he served as a ‘law-
      enforcement person’, the Yellow Pages are full of lavish display ads
      for ‘escort services’. The other day, the Boston Phoenix did a lame hit piece
      on me, in which, if you could stay awake through the wet cement of the guy’s
      prose, the main beef was that I was not a ‘respectable commentator’ like David
      Brooks of the New York Times. ‘Respectability’ seems a weird obsession for a
      fellow who writes for an ‘alternative’ newspaper funded by ads for transsexual
      hookers whose particular charms are spelled out at length, so to speak. In
      other words, while you can make an argument for a ‘managerial’ approach to
      terrorism, the analogy with prostitution sounds more like an undeclared
      surrender. This is aside from the basic defect of the argument: if some gal in
      your apartment building is working as a prostitute, that’s a nuisance — condoms
      in the elevator, dodgy johns in the lobby; if Islamists seize the schoolhouse
      and kill your kids, even if it only happens once every couple of
      years, ‘nuisance’ doesn’t quite cover it.

      So the choice of analogy is revealing and, as Kerry says, we’ve been here
      before. Every so often, back in the Nineties, al-Qa’eda blew up some military
      housing, a ship, a couple of embassies, etc., and the Clinton team shrugged it
      off as a nuisance. No matter how flamboyantly Osama bin Laden sashayed down the
      sidewalk in his fishnets and miniskirt he couldn’t catch the Administration’s
      eye. In 2000, after 17 sailors were killed on the USS Cole, the defense
      secretary Bill Cohen said the attack ‘was not sufficiently provocative’ to
      warrant a response.

      So Osama tried again, on September 11 2001. And this time, like the ads in the
      Boston Phoenix, he was very provocative. And that’s the point: even if you take
      the Kerry doctrine as seriously as the New York Times does, the nuance of
      nuisance depends largely on the terrorists. When all they could do was kill a
      few dozen here, a few hundred there, they were a ‘nuisance’ to Clinton, Cohen,
      Kerry and co; when they came up with a plan that killed thousands, they became
      something more than a nuisance. But that change in status was determined
      largely by them. They might go back to being a mere nuisance for 2005, just
      blowing up a US consulate hither and yon in places no one much cares about. But
      in 2006 they might loose a dirty bomb in Chicago and upgrade to über-nuisance
      again. The Kerry doctrine leaves it in their hands. And, in this kind of war,
      if you’re not on the offensive, you’re losing.

      That’s what John Kerry means when he says ‘we have to get back to the place we
      were’ — back to the Nineties. Mem’ries light the corners of his mind, misty
      watercolour mem’ries of the way we were, but the reason they’re misty
      watercolours is that we didn’t see clearly what was going on. It wasn’t just
      the nuisance of the biennial embassy bombing, it was the terrorist annexation
      of flop states and the thousands upon thousands of young Muslim men graduating
      from al-Qa’eda’s training camps and the
    • Gość: Rita Re: and I think Bush is great! IP: *.client.comcast.net 18.10.04, 06:14
      Are you all people nuts or have little undestanding of economy and politics at
      all? Bush is like a rock only dummer:))

      The conservative party tolerates lower levels of government spending than other
      advanced countries, and far higher levels of inequality, at least in terms of
      wealth. One in six American households earned less than 35% of the median
      income in 2002! Thanks to Bush! TRAGEDY! In comparison, Britain, one of
      Europe's more unequal countries, the proportion of similarly disadvantaged
      households is closer to one in 20!
      America is the only developed nation that does not have a full government-
      supported healthcare system, and the only western democracy that does not
      provide child support to all families.
      America upholds the right to bear arms, the death penalty and strict sentencing
      laws: its imprison¬ment rate is five times that of e.g.Britain, the toughest
      sentencer in Europe! It is much more willing to contemplate the use of force in
      human affairs, even unilaterally, and much more wary of treaties than its
      allies!
    • Gość: true democrat Re: and I think Bush is great! IP: *.client.comcast.net 18.10.04, 06:21
      no wonder there are jokes about Poles being stupid.
      Valentina: It doesn't take a filozofer to read the stocks and see that the
      economy is in recession since 2001! Any first grade student of economy will
      tell you this!
      The US war on Iraq broke all of the United Nations regulations - AND NO WEAPON
      OF MASS DESTRUCTIONS was found! Have you ever added 2 + 2 and thought wHy
      actually AMerica didn't attackt Iran or Korea? Worse things are going on there
      and there is an obvious EVIDENCE they Korea and Iran has the mass destruction
      weapon!
      It is all about OIL and the personal interest of Bush and Cheney, whose
      famieles run the business related to oil!
      • chickenshorts Re: and I think Bush is great! 18.10.04, 10:36
        While busy 'spreading democracy' abroad, the present administration is trying
        to curtail IT at home. Here is just one such example:

        "African-Americans remain the principal target of the Republican campaign to
        block the vote. Unlike the 60s, when black Americans were barred from the polls
        by police dogs, water cannon and billy clubs, the means today are more refined.
        Occasionally the mask slips. In July, John Pappageorge, Michigan's Republican
        state legislator, told a Republican meeting: "If we do not suppress the Detroit
        vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election cycle." Detroit is more
        than 80% black. It does not take a genius to work out whose votes he was keen
        to suppress."

        www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1329707,00.html


        • i.p.freely Re: Yeah, 19.10.04, 01:12
          we have a fearless leader on our hands. Texas cowboy trying to make the world
          safe for democracy while coddling the right wing nuts and ladle out the pork,
          all at the same time.
    • Gość: Gosia Re: and I think Bush is great! IP: *.stn-bsr1.chi-stn.il.cable.rcn.com 19.10.04, 03:58
      And what about all these numbers?
      5milion people lost jobs this year
      Health insurance cost is up for 64%
      Milions of dollars in debt and so on ....
      And it is all thanks to Mrs. Bush!
      By the way, where do you live?
      • Gość: Bush up Kerry down Re: and I think Bush is great! IP: *.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl 19.10.04, 10:52
        Even liberal media cannot cheat that much and they now have to reveal who is
        more likely to win-
        • Gość: Democrat Re: and I think Bush is great! IP: *.client.comcast.net 19.10.04, 23:24
          she deosn't need to go that far. Canada and entire Europe is more liberal than
          US!
          • Gość: Bush up Kerry down Re: and I think Bush is great! IP: *.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl 20.10.04, 14:20
            It was meant to be sarcastic, you know.
        • chickenshorts Re: and I think Bush is great! 20.10.04, 09:16
          Gość portalu: Bush up Kerry down napisał(a):

          >(...) who is
          > more likely to win-
          • Gość: skippy The US ain't what they used to be. IP: *.dialup.optusnet.com.au 20.10.04, 21:47
            I dont't know which is scarier, that Bush is a criminal or a moron.
          • erwas Re: and I think Bush is great! 23.10.04, 06:56
            you gotta have faith, chickenshorts.
            • chickenshorts Re: and I think Bush is great! 23.10.04, 09:17
              erwas napisał:

              > you gotta have faith, chickenshorts.

              And I do! But not the republican brand of 'faith'...

              "Faith is a state of openness or trust. To have faith is like when you trust
              yourself to the water. You don't grab hold of the water when you swim, because
              if you do you will become stiff and tight in the water, and sink. You have to
              relax, and the attitude of faith is the very opposite of clinging, and holding
              on. In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings
              to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe becomes a person who
              has no faith at all. Instead they are holding tight. But the attitude of faith
              is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be."
              Alan Watts
          • felusiak_prawdziwy Re: and I think Bush is great! 25.10.04, 17:35
            chickenshorts napisał:
            > Of course! But what does that tell you?
            > Maybe that the majority of American voters live by faith rather than reason...

            It tells me and everybody else that democrats have a wrong candidate.
            Taking into consideration how vulnerable Bush is, Kerry should be running at
            least 10 points ahead. He ain't.
            • i.p.freely Re: and I think Bush is great! 25.10.04, 23:16
              felusiak... napisal:
              > It tells me and everybody else that democrats have a wrong candidate.
              > Taking into consideration how vulnerable Bush is, Kerry should be running at
              > least 10 points ahead. He ain't.

              Also, it tells me that desperate people do desperate things. Look at "W", just
              as he starts going down in the polls his "campaign consultants" grab on for
              anything they can get ahold of, and if it happens to be something nasty,
              rotten, and false, that doesn't make much difference. Create chaos and ....
              swim while the opponent has to deal with hard, vicious crap that was just
              spread on him, because we, the people, just might give some credence to what
              was said. Not to mention "push-polls". Ever heard of that?


Inne wątki na temat:
Pełna wersja