CNN/YouTube Debate
November 28th, 2007 at 08:27pm Matt Margolis
Watching? Feel free to discuss.
UPDATE: Well, that was a rather disappointing debate. Not because of the answers (though some were better than others) but many of the questions selected were awful. So many were loaded questions or presumptuous. I got the impression that there were some that weren’t even submitted by Republican voters (the target audience) and that was annoying. Still, the Republican candidates certainly demonstrated once again that they can handle a debate in unfriendly territory, with some lousy questions, and a crappy moderator. Meanwhile, Democrats are still too chicken to participate in a debate on FOX News.
I didn’t see the Democrats’ CNN/YouTube debate, so I can’t compare the two. So, if anyone here did watch both, I’d like to hear about the differences.
The most ridiculous moment of the debate was when the openly gay retired Army Colonel asked his question about the Republicans’ positions on gays in the military and lo and behold, after the candidate gave their answers, we learned the guy was actually in the audience, were he was given the chance to say whether or not he was satisfied with the answers. Of course he wasn’t. And we know why…
Apparently he is connected to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
It turns out that Keith Kerr, retired Colonel., U.S. Army; retired Brigadier General, California National Reserve, who submitted a YouTube question about gays in the military, is actually a member of Hillary Clinton’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee. He’s also part of a film production crew trying overturn the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
I’m not sure what the rules of the debate were, and if only Republican voters were supposed to submit questions, but having someone involved in the Hillary campaign not only ask a question, but be granted a unique chance to explain whether or not he was satisfied with the responses, was either the result of severe sloppiness or bias on CNN’s part.
The exchange on waterboarding and torture was interesting. McCain’s personal experience with torture made it impossible for anyone to assertively disagree with him on the issue of waterboarding. Romney could have handled it better though. While his point about not laying out what forms of interrogation will and will not be used on captured terrorists, what was really missing was the point that waterboarding is not torture.
The Cheney cartoon? Give me a break.
I can’t really say who I felt won or lost, since I did miss some parts of the debate. Each had their good moments and bad moments. I don’t know how many undecided Republicans made their decisions tonight, but I will close by saying that I was never really impressed by the whole YouTube debate concept, and I’m still unimpressed.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans
101 Comments
1. sleepygene | November 28th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Rudy’s temper doesn’t help him. Tax payer subsiduzed nookie doesn’t help either.
2. William Teach | November 28th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Would it be too much to ask for CNN to allow Huckabee and Hunter some answer time?
3. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Temper? And taxpayer subsidized nookie made Bill Clinton a folk hero. So I would say you were wrong, AGAIN, sleepy.
Where did they find these YouTube questionnaires? Talk about scraping the bottom of the IQ barrel.
4. Aaron | November 28th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
After watching this debate, all I can say is…
(Ed. Note: Insult deleted)
5. Aaron | November 28th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
“Where did they find these YouTube questionnaires? Talk about scraping the bottom of the IQ barrel.”
At your local College Republican chapter… or here on “Victory” maybe?
6. Kahn | November 28th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Aaaarrrroooonnnnn - thanks for such mature and enlightening posts. Now, back to work at the drive through, OK?
7. Aaron | November 28th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Anytime, Kahn. because “mature and enlightening” is what this blog is all about.
And you’re still gonna get creamed next year…
8. Aaron | November 28th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
And since when does “you’re gonna get creamed in 08″ constitute an “insult”?
Now, I’ve been called every insulting thing in the dictionary on this blog - and those posts are never deleted (And I really don’t care). But please, a little good natured taunting does not constitute an “insult”.
Feeling a little sensitive are we?
9. navydad | November 28th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Errorn has quickly forgotten that GWB has “creamed” the Donks 40-zip over the last few years, so if you’re keeping score, I guess you lose.
But the real issue is larger than who wins politically here in the USA, in fact, it’s who wins the GWOT that matters, and anyone (Ron Paul & Kookspinach included) that believes if we just leave the terrorists alone, they’ll go away, belongs on the Mothership along with Paul and Kookspinach.
Got your ticket yet Errorn?
10. Kahn | November 29th, 2007 at 12:50 am
What’s this I read on Drudge? Clinton paid campaign worker was a plant question asker at this debate?
Well, Aarooooon - you would think that confident and smart people on the left who are oh so sure of themselves wouldn’t need to cheat. But hey, anything you do to a Republican is justified, isn’t it?
Cheating, lying, shooting at us, ransacking our offices, burning our offices, destroying our vehicles, stifling our spokesmen, and seizing our weapons are all fine - because we deserve it.
Arbeit Macht Frei.
If the above report is true - I call on Hillary Clinton to withdraw from the campaign.
11. rubbersoul | November 29th, 2007 at 1:30 am
It’s hard to believe that Mitt believes anything that comes out of his own mouth.
He claimed not to recognize himself in Fred’s attack ad piece (showing Romney in pro-choice mode). He then assured the audience that he was a changed man.
It’s not like he was 18 yrs old when he was making those comments before, he was in his mid 40’s. He’ll tell you whatever it is you want to hear, just w/o any feeling.
Might as well be selling toaster ovens on QVC…
12. Robert | November 29th, 2007 at 5:00 am
The thing that I thought rediculous about the openly gay retired general, is the fact that NO ONE seemed to catch the fact that during the time he was in the military, he LET NO ONE KNOW! He didn’t tell until after he retired, so his point about openly gay people in the military was kind of mute don’t you think?
-Robert-
13. bozo the neoclown | November 29th, 2007 at 5:27 am
“I got the impression that there were some that weren’t even submitted by Republican voters (the target audience)”. thanks for the laugh. essentially, a presidential candidate doesn’t have to answer questions from people who may not vote for them? WAAAHHHHpublican democracy at it’s finest
14. Dittohead4Life | November 29th, 2007 at 5:53 am
Tax payer subsiduzed nookie doesn’t help either.
But it’s okay once one gets into the Oval Office, right, dimwit?
Where did they find these YouTube questionnaires? Talk about scraping the bottom of the IQ barrel.
neocon, I would assert that many of those questions were not from Republican voters. Especially the kook holding the Bible; he looked like he was stoned out of his gourd! And the “Log Cabin Republican” video was obviously a lefty kook.
The gay General? Anyone who wasn’t suspicious of this guy, from the get-go, is a moron. It’s no surprise he was a Clintonista.
Romney, while not my favourite, handled the direct assaults well. Rudy, my favourite, should’ve known better than to try that “illegals working at your home” attack, and the way Mitt responded to his postition on life was brilliant. Unlike the WIC, Hitlery, who flip-flops depending on who the audience is, Romney admitted he was wrong, years ago, about his pro-choice stance, and admitted, he was wrong, years ago, about DADT.
He didn’t tell until after he retired, so his point about openly gay people in the military was kind of mute don’t you think?
Brilliant point, Robert. This dinosaur was such a brave advocate while he was on active duty, so why did he hide it? Hypocrisy at its finest.
15. Parker | November 29th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Romney admitted he was wrong, years ago, about his pro-choice stance, and admitted, he was wrong, years ago, about DADT
Why is admitting you were wrong a flip flop only when it’s comes from Dem side? If you were for abortion before you were against abortion isn’t that a flip flop? Why does it matter if the flip flop was “years ago”? Kerry’s “flip flops” were years ago. I didn’t realize there was a statute of limitations on flip flopping.
Look. I’m not defending Hillary or Kerry. If Election Day were today, I’d likely be voting GOP. I just believe that Romney is a flip flopper by the standards put forward on this blog and like Hillary will vacillate as often as it works to his advantage (well, maybe not as often as Hillary). I’m just curious as to the difference in the definition of flip flopping between candidates other than party affiliation?
16. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 8:40 am
YouTube has exposed itself as the tool of the uninformed, indoctrinated, and uneducated youth of our society.
I was embarrased for those that submitted questions and it lowered the standard of POTUS debates.
I wouldn’t watch another one if this joke of a debating platform is used again.
17. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 8:59 am
During the next Dem debate, I wonder if CNN could find one of the millions of Iraqi dissidents who could ask:
“Half of my family was imprisoned and killed under Saddams rule so my questions is why do you believe that deposing Saddam, and freeing the millions of oppressed Iraqis was wrong?
18. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 9:08 am
neocon
I completely agree. What the hell, are these bufoons drawn from a hat or what? Maybe most were Donks incognito as was the retired Keith Kerr.
I’d suggest that CNN, knowing that they compete with PMSMBC for ratings and since their demographics include Dobermann viewers, believe they need to “dumb down” the questions to appeal to the young voter. The problem with this model is that it turns off us older viewers, to wit, this conversation.
19. Aaron | November 29th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Kaaaaahn:
“What’s this I read on Drudge?…”
I would suggest you expand your “news” sources a bit (and no, cable infotainment and wingnut blogs don’t really count as journalism).
“Well, Aarooooon - you would think that confident and smart people on the left who are oh so sure of themselves wouldn’t need to cheat. But hey, anything you do to a Republican is justified, isn’t it?”
Nice straw man there, Kahn. Who ever said I support Hillary, or any of her campaign tactics? And I certainly never said “doing anything to a Republican is justified.” However, don’t you think you’re being a bit whiny here?
“Cheating, lying, shooting at us, ransacking our offices, burning our offices, destroying our vehicles, stifling our spokesmen, and seizing our weapons are all fine - because we deserve it.”
LOL - oh my. You act like you are Jews being rounded up by the gestapo or blacks being set upon by the KKK all because… someone may have planted an inconvenient question at a campaign debate?? Wow that’s some serious melodrama and persecution complex you got going on.
As always, you emotional drama queens need to get a grip. No wonder you are so easily manipulated.
20. phnx | November 29th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Some of these questions sounded more like speaches, with the question thrown in at the end as an afterthought. On these you could tell the questioner had an agenda, and really wasn’t interested in an answer.
21. Aaron | November 29th, 2007 at 10:15 am
“I didn’t see the Democrats’ CNN/YouTube debate, so I can’t compare the two. So, if anyone here did watch both, I’d like to hear about the differences.”
Well, I watched both the Dem and Repub CNN/YouTube debates in full, and I share your general disgust at the format. I can’t say there was really much difference between the Democrat and Republican versions - both pretty much sucked. And the questions were as God-awful in the Dem version as the Repub one.
It seems CNN chose questions solely for their entertainment value, since cable “news” long ago devolved into ratings-driven infotainment. Hiding behind the pretense of inviting the general public to drive the debate, CNN obviously cherry-picked videos that were either titillating, sensationalist, or cute. The freakier the questioner and wilder the performance, the better. This means that in both debates, God, Guns, and Gays got disproportional emphasis, while far more important - but mundane - topics like fiscal strategies, foreign policy, infrastructure, etc, barely got a nod.
Sadly, this kind of gaudy circus is what passes for serious debate in this country. Our entertainment-driven media have failed us miserably.
22. jayhay | November 29th, 2007 at 10:22 am
The Weekly Standard pretty much summed it up:
“So, a good night for for the lowest denominator, a bad night for the GOP. America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers as well as various one issue activists hammering their pet causes. My cheers went to a listless Fred Thompson who easily qualified himself to be president in my book by looking all night like he would cheerfully trade his left arm for an early exit off the stage to a waiting Scotch and good Cuban cigar. The media will probably award a win to Mike Huckabee, the easy listening music candidate at home in any crowd, fluent in simpleton speak and the one man on the stage tonight who led the audience to roaring cheers by boasting that he had a special qualification to be president that none of the second-raters on the stage could match: A degree in Bible Studies from Ouachita Baptist University of Arkadelphia, Arkansas.
23. Bruce | November 29th, 2007 at 10:26 am
All the questions were from Democrat Campaign operatives from various politicians. No questions were from republican voters. All questions were from active democrat campaigners.
24. Aaron | November 29th, 2007 at 10:33 am
“All the questions were from Democrat Campaign operatives from various politicians. No questions were from republican voters. All questions were from active democrat campaigners.”
And you know this… how?
25. phnx | November 29th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Erron:
This is HOW:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/
26. Aaron | November 29th, 2007 at 10:41 am
jayhay -
Yep - that description from Weekly Standard seems pretty accurate (although I would disagree about Thompson - he always looks sleepy and ready to head for the exit, no matter what the format or venue).
During the Dem YouTube debates as well, Joe Biden could barely hide his disgust at the format. He alternated between rolling his eyes and shaking his head in disbelief at almost every question, and gave appropriately flippant answers. That he obviously thought the whole format was an idiotic imitation of the Jerry Springer Show was enough for him to earn my respect, if not my vote.
27. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 10:42 am
What a sorry bunch of candidates you guys have to choose from! Watching Romney and Guilliani “flip flop” made Hillary look like she gives straight answers (and that’s saying something!). Moreover, Huckabee (a former minister, I think he reminded us a few times) evaded whether Jesus would oppose the death penalty- a SURE sign that he KNOWS he’s doesn’t share Jesus’ opinion on the matter (Jesus, after all, was a VICTIM of capital punishment and spoke out against it at least twice!)
The most reasonable (and most electable) is McCain, but the party loyal have been conditioned like Pavlovian dogs to hate him (because of immigration policy, his attacks on Falwell some years back, and because he opposes torture).
But all the other candidates were in a p*ssing contest over who hates immigrants the most, who hates gays the most, and who hates Hillary the most! The fact that a legitimate question from a ex-General about gays being allowed to serve openly in the military is now being attacked as being a ‘plant’ shows you how much no one wants to really answer the question.
Do they REALLY believe in equality and freedom? I mean, are ’straight’ people who are promiscuous disallowed from serving in the military? Shouldn’t we be more concerned with inappropriate behavior on the job (sex harassment often is perpetrated by straight men against women) than whether someone is gay, straight, promiscuous, etc?
If working with gay people hurts morale, how did the Republican congressmen work so closely with Mark Foley, Larry Craig, David Drier, Ken Mehlmen etc? Do they think that our military men and women are less tolerant than they are?
Romney was the funniest! Just a few years ago, he was staunchly pro-choice, “looked forward” to when gays could serve openly in the military, etc, etc. He was just left stammering as he tried to evade answering the questions!
‘08 is sure going to be a fun election to watch! Your only hope is that Hillary is the nominee and her win of the Presidency leads to Republican Congressional wins (because of a backlash against her). If you can get a trustworthy, consistent, and rational candidate by ‘12, you may then stand a shot. If Obama or Edwards gets the nod, the GOP will not only be slaughtered in ‘08, but most likely in ‘12 as well. Remember, the DNCC and Dem candidates are raising FAR MORE contributions than their GOP counterparts!
28. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 10:53 am
coulter,
No one here has even slightest respect for your opinion. To me you’re just another YouTube, degenerate side show.
You must feel that if you say something often enough, somebody will listen because everything you post is just a recitation of everything you’ve said in the past. You can shorten your posts up by just saying:
Repeat.
29. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 11:00 am
coulter,
If you were true to your liberal beliefs, you would fully and openly support Dennis Kucinich. He is the only Democrat that truly represents liberalism.
30. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 11:01 am
>>No one here has even slightest respect for your opinion.<<
Obviously, no one in your party seems to have ANY respect for anyone with differing viewpoints.
Quite the shock that all your candidates are white men who pretend to be ‘good Christians’, just like the lot of you.
And, unlike you guys, I remember being correct about the ‘06 elections, the Iraq War not being a ‘cakewalk’, the battle between ‘Big Government Conservatives’ vs ‘Evangelical’ vs ‘Economic Conservatives’.
Too bad you don’t respect my opinion, I predicted exactly what is happening to the GOP.
31. Aaron | November 29th, 2007 at 11:03 am
phnx -
Again, I am questioning Bruce’s assertion that ALL of the questioners were democratic operatives. And I’ll also repeat that Michelle Malkin and Matt Drudge don’t count as factual journalism.
In all, there were 40 video questioners, and Malkin et al are in a tizzy because it appears 4 or 5 were from supporters of other democrats. She acts like that is some kind of huge scoop.
Who ever said that questions would only be from supporters of the Republicans?
The very same thing happened during the Dem YouTube debate: there were questioners who obviously were never intending to ever vote for a democrat. In one video during the Dem debate, a complete nut-job from the militia movement asks which candidate will protect his “baby”, which turns out to be his assault rifle. Now, you mean to tell me that a Michigan militia guy who calls his weapon “baby” is not a guy who is obviously hostile to Democrats?
Did you hear democrats whine about fielding questions from people who were obviously supporters of Republicans?
In both debates, the videos were obviously chosen for their freakiness. Creating a circus freak was the whole point.
32. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 11:05 am
And you’re a racist. Judging the content of character by the color of their skin and faith.
How would MLK react to your post?
How strong is your support for Kucinich? Keep in mind he is white and over 40. Are you such a racist that you would have a hard time supporting a white guy?
33. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 11:06 am
>>If you were true to your liberal beliefs, you would fully and openly support Dennis Kucinich. He is the only Democrat that truly represents liberalism.<<
Huh? Actually, Guilliani, Romney, Ron Paul (as flawed as they are) ALL represent social liberalism (or have in the recent past)
Kucinich, like Paul, occasionally says something pithy because he is not beholden to corporate interests or what makes one ‘electable’. Still, they are both KOOKY on quite a lot of subjects. But for the GOP, they have MORE kooks- Huckabee, Romney (caffeine is immoral and Jesus will return to Utah!), Tancredo, etc!
I’d rather have OUR candidates (Hillary notwithstanding, though she’s preferable to all GOP candidates but McCain) than your sorry bunch!
34. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 11:11 am
>>And you’re a racist. Judging the content of character by the color of their skin and faith.
How would MLK react to your post?<<
I don’t think MLK ever heralded homogeny of white economic and political power as a good thing. I know he spoke out in support of affirmative action and people of all races working together, something I support as well. Guilliani, I might remind you, also supports affirmative action.
Hey, call me racist and sexist, but I thought it was a GOOD thing when Liddy Dole was running for the GOP nomination! Just like I thought Condi should run. . . now how does that make me racist?
35. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Refering to ones skin color as a main identifier is the very definition of racism. I would think that someone who considers themselves liberal would be aware of that. The fact that you point out the skin color of everyone you mention, denotes you as a racist. Sorry.
And if you do not support Kucinich, you are a hypocrite as well.
A racist hypocrite. Not a good thing.
36. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 11:21 am
And you thought Liddy running for the GOP was a good thing why????
Because you liked her policies? Or because she’s a woman?
Was it based strictly on gender or policies?
37. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 11:21 am
neoconjob,
To put it in perspective: you said that no one here respected my opinions. I said that it’s too bad that your party doesn’t respect diversity- witness the fact that all your candidates are white, Christian men. I said nothing against a group of people because of their race or faith, I was just observing that they are all so alike.
Apparently you think valuing diversity is racist now.
38. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Sort of funny when the racists and sexists accuse others of what they’re guilty of. . .
When Ron Paul answered that the DOCTOR should be punished for abortion, not the woman, I laughed. My wife and I both agreed that one could probably be prosecuted if one hired a hitman to kill another person- not only the hitman would be committing a crime.
If a woman hires someone to commit ‘murder’, isn’t she an accomplice to murder? Does a woman have NO FREE WILL or MIND OF HER OWN in the GOP world? And what is this about states deciding? Isn’t murder a FEDERAL crime with Federal sentencing guidelines?
Funny how many Republican women are pro-choice (Rice, Barbara & Laura Bush, Whitman, etc), but men control the GOP’s party positions. Guess that makes ME the sexist one?!?!?
39. Joe | November 29th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Someone refresh my memory… last Presidential election, some polital party lambasted John Kerry for flipflopping. Kerry said that his original decisioin was a bad decision and he changed his mind on it. That polital pa(r)ty skips my mind right now, but I remember they wouldn’t let it go. He was a flip-flopper and that was that.
From last night’s “debate”:
Mitt Romney says —-
If people in this country are looking for someone who’s never made a mistake on a policy issue and is not willing to admit they’re ever wrong, why then they’re going to have to find somebody else, because on abortion I was wrong.
How can you people even stand listening to a flip-flopper like that???????
40. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 11:29 am
So diversity is tied to skin color? huh. Who would have thunk it? And you mean that they LOOK alike. Again, another racist viewpoint.
Only to a racist is diversity a skin color issue.
Do you plan to vote for Kucinich?
41. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Why wont you answer my Kucinich question?
42. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Here was my answer, pal:
“Huh? Actually, Guilliani, Romney, Ron Paul (as flawed as they are) ALL represent social liberalism (or have in the recent past)
Kucinich, like Paul, occasionally says something pithy because he is not beholden to corporate interests or what makes one ‘electable’. Still, they are both KOOKY on quite a lot of subjects. But for the GOP, they have MORE kooks- Huckabee, Romney (caffeine is immoral and Jesus will return to Utah!), Tancredo, etc!
I’d rather have OUR candidates (Hillary notwithstanding, though she’s preferable to all GOP candidates but McCain) than your sorry bunch!”
43. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 11:41 am
In last nite’s debate, Leeann Anderson asked questions regarding products made in China (lead paint issue) and how do the Rep. candidates plan to deal with this issue and keep jobs in America. Keep jobs in America Leeann? Why, so you kooks can feel better about yourself when you go to China and adopt those poor little children that can’t take care of themselves….horse sh#t!! Sarcasm off.
Am I the only one here that noticed she had adopted a Chinese girl and then had the nerve to insinuate that America had exported our jobs to China. WTF!! She goes to China, pulls a Madonna and expects the folks to praise her for the adoption??? What a hypocrite!! AND NO ONE CALLS HER ON IT!!!!
Someone please help me understand this elitist attitude and why hadn’t anyone picked up on the double standard???
Rico, THIS MAKES ME ANGRY!!
44. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 11:41 am
So, if I consider Kucinich “KOOKY” I probably won’t vote for him. . .
Now, which KOOK has your support? Romney, Huckabee, Tancredo, Paul?
Or maybe you support an man like thrice-married, adulterer, abortion supporter, gay rights supporter, gun-control supporter Guilliani?
45. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 11:43 am
coulterfan
Have you purchased your ticket to the Mothership yet?
46. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 11:44 am
BTW, Leeann, why not adopt an American child…..hmmmm?
47. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 11:49 am
>>Have you purchased your ticket to the Mothership yet?<<
How’s your application to the ‘White Power’ group coming? Maybe you need to bash a few more mothers who adopt female Chinese children from China (where girls are not valued), but I think you’re well on your way.
48. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
CF,
Have you ever been to China?
I have, so let’s get the discussion going.
But first, you’ll need to research the myth you just stated before we go forward.
49. phnx | November 29th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Erron,
I agree that many of the questions were selected for the kookinessm, and it lent to a freakshow atmosphere. But tell me, were there any Conservative or Republican activists or campaign workers sprinkled into the Dem debate. No, I didn’t think so.
CNN once again lives up to its moniker of the Clinton News Network. I wonder if they have to file with the FEC for their “in kind” contributions to her campaign.
50. Kahn | November 29th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Turns out other question askers were Democratic operatives. And you people are afraid to debate on Fox? Hypocrites.
But everything is OK if you hate enough.
51. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
>>Have you ever been to China?<<
Yes, I have. I was there for a month. Do you think it’s a myth that people are limited to having only one child? That aborting fetuses because they are girls isn’t common?
Why shouldn’t LeAnn be free to adopt a Chinese baby? Why shouldn’t she be free to not want American toys contaminated with lead?
It’s funny how the candidates AVOIDED the real subject. They said that it IS ILLEGAL to import contaminated toys!
If so, WHY was the recall voluntary? Why are many contaminated toys STILL being sold? Why aren’t we arresting the CEOs of companies which knowingly are selling contaminated toys?
The racism is rampant around here and in the Republican party. Neocon thinks it’s RACIST to notice that all GOP candidates are white males?
Here’s the thing: I would vote for a white, Christian male if I thought he was the best choice. I would also vote for a black man, a woman, or a Muslim if I thought s/he was the best choice.
Evidently, though, Republicans will ONLY vote for white Christian males (look at the litmus test of believing EVERY word of the Bible, for instance).
52. jayhay | November 29th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Good grief I’ve never seen so much whining.
You don’t like the questions? CNN is too corrupt for you? Then don’t show up for the debate. Like with Fox, the Democrats just said no. And who cares who asks the questions? Was the content inappropriate?
This post got it right:
“What were the “gotcha” questions? Who were the yahoos? How do they differ from the stated positions of bloggers WELL within the mainstream of the Republican party? It wasn’t the biblical literalism question, because here is Red State:
“‘Oh, and mock me if you will, but I do not question the account of Jonah and the Whale. You know, Mayor, Faith ain’t just a woman’s name.’
“The right-wing Bush fluffer-sphere is up in arms because the country got a good look at who the GOP really is last night. And when you look at what the GOP really is, and what they really believe in and what they really stand for, well, that just ain’t good for the Republicans.”
53. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Jayhay,
GREAT points! I saw that comment (and many others like it) on RedState this morning. It’s funny how they are whining about the PUBLIC asking tough questions!
I think the GOP is just used to only having diehard supporters who signed loyalty oaths at their ‘Town Hall Meetings’. You know, more questions like:
“THE PRESIDENT: You got a question?
Q I, too, want to say God bless you, Mr. Bush. My husband and my twins and I pray for you daily, as do many home schoolers. (Applause.) Thank you for recognizing home schoolers.”
(this is an actual ‘question’ from one of his town hall meetings! LOL!!!)
All this whining about ‘unfair’ questions, and the Democrats are the p*ssies?!?!?
The reason they consider these ‘gotcha’ questions is because they KNOW that if their REAL views were publicized, that no sane American would vote for any of these NUTJOBS!
54. Sunny | November 29th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
“Am I the only one here that noticed she had adopted a Chinese girl and then had the nerve to insinuate that America had exported our jobs to China. WTF!! She goes to China, pulls a Madonna and expects the folks to praise her for the adoption??? What a hypocrite!! AND NO ONE CALLS HER ON IT!!!! “navydad
Exactly why is she a hypocrite by adopting a child from China (thousands of Chinese baby girls are adopted each year by Americians - otherwise, they are placed in orphanages or killed), and then asking our government why it is permitting Chinese made toys that are dangerous to our children to be imported? A very legitimate question from a parent- are we going to protect our children from unsafe but cheap toys from Communist China? Would you have felt better about the question had the child been adopted from Russia or some other country besides China or maybe only if an American child? I think you missed the irony of her question - she and her husband adopts a child from China who had a future of abject poverty and unsafe conditions only to have our government turn a blind eye to the garbage being imported into our country for children.
“Someone please help me understand this elitist attitude and why hadn’t anyone picked up on the double standard???” navydad
Exactly what is the “elitist attitude”? That someone would adopt a child from a country where this child would have grown up in total poverty if not adopted? Is that what an elitist is? And how is this a “double standard”? You are thowing around words with no real meaning. If you mean, for example, like the GOP does not have a problem with Rudy’s affairs and marriages, but can’t seem to let go of Bill Clinton’s sexual involvement with an intern, that is what I consider a double standard. Maybe you can give me a better example.
Oh, and by the way, millions of jobs have been lost to Communist China - cause they can produce tons of junk cheaply, since the people work in horrible conditions for very little pay. So, the Made in America that use to mean something no longer does. Maybe we need to think about quality instead of quantity for a change.
55. bozo the neoclown | November 29th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“23. Bruce | November 29th, 2007 at 10:26 am
All the questions were from Democrat Campaign operatives from various politicians.”
ooohhhhh, the neoclowns are getting paranoid. we’re out to get you. BOO!
56. bozo the neoclown | November 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
“50. Kahn | November 29th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Turns out other question askers were Democratic operatives.”
perhaps you can get a group rate on therapy/meds?
57. Joe | November 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Can any Romney-backer justify why you would back such a flip-flopper?
I was hoping that someone would try defending a flip-flopper after completely lambasting John Kerry in 2004 over his alleged “flip-flopping”.
ROMNEY last night —
If people in this country are looking for someone who’s never made a mistake on a policy issue and is not willing to admit they’re ever wrong, why then they’re going to have to find somebody else, because on abortion I was wrong.
58. Ricorun | November 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Rico, THIS MAKES ME ANGRY!!
Let it out, navydad. You’ll feel better. Lol!
59. Brian Gregory | November 29th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
For my opinion on the homosexual issue, please see my comment on the latter of these posts.
I for one thought that Mike Huckabee and John McCain were phenomenal, while the rest of the field was particularly weak. Mitt Romney disgusted me…I am sick and tired of the arrogant, flip-flopping, slick-talking rhetoric we get from him each and every damn time he takes the stage. PLEASE do not vote for that man! He is not a Republican, he is a panderer.
Giuliani was decent. I was not upset with any of his answers. Same goes for Thompson and Tancredo.
Paul was a nutcase as usual, though McCain really brought down the house with his emotional “let us win!” That shut Paul, and the rest of the skeptics, up for a few beautiful moments.
The debate on torture was what really did Romney in. Unacceptable answer. Think for yourself, Governor! Again, Mccain shut him up.
Huckabee was brilliant on the death penalty question, as well as in his counter to Romney’s immigration accusations. The one-liner regarding sending Clinton to the moon was priceless.
See my blog for full commentary! I wasn’t overly impressed with this debate, mainly because the questions were horrendous.
60. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
coulter,
Well you’re officially a racist and a hypocrite. Kucinich is the ONLY Dem that is a true liberal. If you vote for anyone else in that field you are compromising some of your core beliefs.
And I have noticed that you made a refernce to “white power” in another post. Wow. You have problems.
So which policy positions
61. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
>>Well you’re officially a racist and a hypocrite. <<
You seem to be projecting your beliefs onto me. I am the one who will vote for anyone regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, if I believe s/he would make the best candidate. You think I’m racist for noticing the homogeny of the GOP field?
Can you say the same? Would you vote for a Muslim, a woman, an African American, or an atheist?
A hypocrite? No, I’m entirely consistent, unlike the bulk of your sorry candidates!
Kucinich isn’t the only liberal- actually there are A LOT OF LIBERALS in the GOP! Guilliani has nearly identical social and economic positions as Clinton (they were PALS during the 90s, as you recall), Romney has (at one point or another) been socially liberal, Pataki is liberal, Bloomberg, Christine Todd Whitman, etc, etc.
Who is NOT socially liberal amongst the Democrats?
Hey, if you don’t support Ron Paul, then YOU are the hypocrite. He is the only social and economic conservative in the GOP primaries (Huckabee is a big spender, Thompson was a pal of Clinton and pro-choice, etc, etc)
62. Sunny | November 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
neocon, you are so ate up with coulterfan voting for Kucinich - gotta wonder why. Declaring that he is the only person a liberal could vote for. And who is the only person a true conservative could vote for - Ron Paul??? He is the one who espouts smaller government, less taxes, less government interference in business etc. Aren’t these true conservative values?
63. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
I would vote for any conservative that shared some or most of my views. I just don’t see people as a skin color or gender the way you do.
Ron Paul is a conspiracy minded whack job. Period.
Giulani took Clinton to courts over the line item veto in the 90’s. Not exactly cocktail party friends.
Re: the Dems positions on the war, defense, and taxes (specifically capital gains), no of them, other than Kucinich tow the liberal line.
Re: diveristy, you are right, the GOP candidates all over the place, wherein the Dems are mostly in lockstep, only trying to out do each other as far as how much money they will give away.
64. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I am just turning the tables on both of you guys. Liberals love to point out the social liberalism of the current conservatives then cite hypocrisy.
There are a lot of conservatives who are not opposed to social programs that benefit those in need, including me. What I am opposed to is the ever expanding nature of those programs.
Outside of Kucinich & Obama, every other Dem candidate have waffling, sometime conservative, views on many issues.
Also the experience factor is huge. Richardson may be the only one with major executive management experience amongst the Dems.
On the other side, Giulani, Romney and Huckabee have major executive experience.
Paul is a libertarian and quite frankly his views are not even remotely possible in this current global climate. We all want less taxes, we all want less government and quite frankly considering the currently levels of each, any reduction would be welcome.
65. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
>>There are a lot of conservatives who are not opposed to social programs that benefit those in need, including me. What I am opposed to is the ever expanding nature of those programs.<<
Except, apparently, when we are providing these social programs to the people of Iraq. It’s only spending money on things like rebuilding our countries infrastructure that people like you are opposed to. The Bush administration INSISTED that the people of Iraq get Universal Health Care in their Constitution (and WE are paying for it!)
Hypocrisy would be selling out one’s core beliefs and voting for someone who is the polar opposite. Like, for instance, accusing Democrats of being ‘baby-killers’ and voting for Guilliani or Romney. Or insisting that ‘character counts’ and voting for a thrice-married man who expensed trips with his mistress, hired a mob-affiliated Chief of Police, etc, etc. THAT, my friend, is hypocrisy!
Obama and Edwards are quite liberal AND share my core beliefs- I would not be selling out in order to vote for them. And I would vote for either- race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc do not matter to me. The ONLY matchup where I may vote GOP is McCain versus Hillary (which isn’t going to happen)
How does that make ME racist? I will vote for a white male candidate- will you vote for a non-white, non-Christian, non-male?
66. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Sunny states:
“she and her husband adopts a child from China who had a future of abject poverty and unsafe conditions only to have our government turn a blind eye.”
You’re joking right? Abject poverty, according to the left, exists in America…Sunny! That’s what your side has been saying for years, so why not answer the call in the US first? Oh, I get it, now that she’s done this great humanitarin deed, it gives her the right to espouse high-road rules…..right…makes me puke! Sounds like an elitist to me….LOL! I’d bet a crisp hundred-dollar bill they feel real good about themselves these days.
Firstly. Why not support the Chinese, or any country for that matter, by offering them the tools to build a better lifestyle where they are, but not in America? Why bring them here to make their lifestyle better when China’s economy is booming? I know, but they need our help….as a tear slowly rolls down my face.
Leeann and her hubby have been duped into believing that all of China is in “abject” poverty.
This is exactly why many African Americans vote Democrat…they’ve been brainwashed into believing they can’t do it on their own, thanks to the left.
Which brings me to my next question:
Why didn’t she adopt an African American baby? Makes one wonder doesn’t it?
Now, if the truth be told.
My wife and I have friends that adopted two chinese boys–how about that Sunny…Chinese boys–and the reason, which was sold to them by their Chinese advocate, was “they didn’t have a home and the parents couldn’t take care of them.” Okay, fine, but when it came right down to it, they admitted that there was a better chance that Chinese children would fare better in school and life in general with a caucasian family than an African American baby….now that’s hypocrisy!
If she were truly altruistic, and worried about American jobs, she and her phony hubby, would have adopted an American first…no matter what! That’s the hypocrisy.
Lastly, to complain about losing jobs offshore is laughable. The only jobs I hate to see leave are the high paid jobs…let ‘em have the non-skilled labor jobs. The fact of the matter is, those that export manufacturing from the USA need to be responsible for QC and environmental regs…not China.
67. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
You’re right. I do support whatever needs the Iraqis currently have. And please point to my statement where I stated opposition to rebuilding our infrastructure. (where did you pull that out of???)
I find it hypocritical that a supposed liberal who champions and cares deeply about human and civil rights, would be lecturing me about financially helping our global friends who are desperately in need. Unbelievable.
You obviously don’t get the fact that you’re a racist by simply viewing EVERYONE by skin color. It’s hard to believe that in this day and age, someone would actually say that they are voting for, or not voting for a white male.
YOU PERPETUATE RACISM BY THAT VERY STATEMENT
68. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
coulterfan
You nailed it!
Is it hypocrisy to condone abortion here in the USA and condem it in China…what say you?
69. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
>>YOU PERPETUATE RACISM BY THAT VERY STATEMENT<<
Okay, so by your ‘logic’ all the civil rights’ activists were ‘racist’ for noticing that all wealth and power were in the hands of white Americans?
Do you NOT think that race is important in American society? Do you think most minorities would agree with you? If you were a black woman and you noticed that every US President was a white male, you wouldn’t think that was relevant WHATSOEVER? How about in the MidEast, where every candidate is Muslim and male- you don’t think that it would be nice to see more diversity & more choices?
Racism is not noticing skin color differences, but attributing negative characteristics to others because of their skin color. There IS A LOT of racism is the GOP. . . witness Rush Limbaugh saying things like “take that bone out of your nose and call me back” to a black caller, mocking Jesse Jackson’s accent, implying that McNabb isn’t a good quarterback but got the job because of affirmative action, etc. Or Trent Lott and the CCC and his support of Strom Thurmond’s segregationist platform. . .
I could go on, but you don’t listen. . .
70. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
>>Is it hypocrisy to condone abortion here in the USA and condem it in China…what say you?<<
Condone it? Hey, I just think people should be free to control their own bodies. Therefore, I DON’T condone the Chinese 1-child restriction. I also would NOT approve of abortion to select gender, but this happens BECAUSE of this restriction (males make more money and can better provide for their parents in old age). But just because I support freedom doesn’t mean I condone behavior. For instance, I support legalized gambling, but am opposed to gambling personally. I was opposed to seatbelt laws, but strongly believe in wearing seatbelts.
I believe in personal responsibility and personal freedom- something the Chinese DO NOT have!
Hey, why do YOU support paying for universal Health Care for all Iraqis, but not for all Americans?
71. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
coulter,
That’s my very point. Someone has to begin overlooking skin color if we are ever going to become color blind. Personally, I could not care less what hue of skin someone has.
Remember MLK. He’s one of my heros.
72. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
coulter,
We are already paying for socialized medicine here in the US. There’s PLENTY of it.
73. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
>>Remember MLK. He’s one of my heros.<>We are already paying for socialized medicine here in the US. There’s PLENTY of it.<<
REALLY?!?! Cause my brother in law (who works part time) and his family (including a 1 year old) don’t have ANY health insurance. . . and they’re STILL paying off the $3000 debt they owe for her childbirth!
Where do they sign up?!?!?
74. Matt Margolis | November 29th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
bozo the neoclown:
Obviously you failed to understand my point. I am admittedly unaware of the guidelines of the debate and of the rules for submitting questions, but seeing as how Republican/Democrat primary debates are basically for people who intend to vote in their party’s primary, it seems logical that the submitted questions would be from potential voters in that party’s primary. If no such rule existed, were questions from Republicans used in the Democrats’ YouTube debate to the same extent as last night’s Republican YouTube debate? I’m guessing not.
Looking back at this campaign, Democrats have chosen safe venues for their debates, and have made threats in order to not be challenged or receive tough questions. Republicans clearly are able to handle tough questions from people who clearly had no intention of supporting them, or another Republican candidate.
So, why can’t Democrats handle questions from non-supporters? Why can’t Democrats handle tough questions?
If you’re going to play the “democracy” card, you should be outraged that Democrats ran like cowards from the Fox debate.
How have Republicans handled themselves? they’ve participated in debates with partisan liberal moderators and loaded questions. Democrats have, by comparison, been in friendly territory.
75. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
$3000 child birth sounds like they already received a discount. My last child cost over $10,000. I negotiated and ended up paying $4800, out of pocket. I don’t have health insurance. And even if I did I would have paid at least $2500 plus my montly premiums.
76. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
>>$3000 child birth sounds like they already received a discount. My last child cost over $10,000. I negotiated and ended up paying $4800, out of pocket. I don’t have health insurance. And even if I did I would have paid at least $2500 plus my montly premiums.<<
So, THAT’S your idea of ’socialized medicine’? That sounds GREAT! Let’s ask the Canadians, the British, the French if they wouldn’t prefer OUR system! We pay over twice what any other country pays but rank 43rd in quality of care.
At least we’re number 1 in inefficiency, huh? BTW, Medicare has less overhead (3%) than ANY private insurance (usually 30% or so).
77. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Well I assumed you could fill in the blanks; medicare, medicaid, SCHIP,WIC, ACCESS and other state and local programs
Sheesh.
78. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
“Condone it? Hey, I just think people should be free to control their own bodies”
This is fine, however, abortion, like a plastic bag has found its way into the “disposable” category and as time passes, each generation grants the practice more acceptance than previous generations.
Iraqi universal health care is likened to Mexico’s health care program…it’s nonexistent and in order to compensate their citizens for a one-dimensional economy (oil is their only export), they’ll most likely “throw them a bone” with a weak attempt at universal health care. They’ll provide the type of care that you suggested in your post to Neocon, but you tend to forget that a gross over-generalization has been committed here….the countries you point to have very low quality care, thus the influx of their citizens to America for a higher quality health care.
I think you were being sarcastic to Neocon???
“So, THAT’S your idea of ’socialized medicine’? That sounds GREAT! Let’s ask the Canadians, the British, the French if they wouldn’t prefer OUR system! We pay over twice what any other country pays but rank 43rd in quality of care.”
79. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
>>Well I assumed you could fill in the blanks; medicare, medicaid, SCHIP,WIC, ACCESS and other state and local programs
Sheesh.<<
Sorry, none of them apply to my brother’s family, or mine, or yours. . .
You’re content to be #43 in quality of care and yet pay DOUBLE the cost? You think everything, including health care, should be profit driven?
Doesn’t sound ‘Pro-Life’ to me! BTW, what would you do with all the mother’s who can’t afford insurance and childbirth once abortion is declared illegal? Who pays for pre and post natal care? Who pays for health care for the infant and her family? What’s your plan?
80. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
>>.the countries you point to have very low quality care, thus the influx of their citizens to America for a higher quality health care.<<
Actually, no. Look at the WHO rankings and the surveys about citizen satisfaction in industrialized nations.
We pay over double what they pay in other Western countries but have FAR WORSE quality of care. . .
Unless you’re a millionaire, in which case you can EASILY afford the best care in the world WHEREVER that Dr. practices (the US, Dubai, France, UAE, etc)
81. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Coulterfan
Why is it that when liberals talk about American health care, they almost always convienently leave out that 21 of the top 50 Pharma companies are based in America?
Take a look at an R&D cost matrix and you’ll see that we spend more than all remaining top 50 companies…combined! And if you know anything about R&D, it’s very expensive and there is no economies of scale attached to R&D.
This should help you understand where you’re going wrong with your assumptions.
82. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
The WHO rankings? Please.
The level of care we receive vs the rest of the world is not even worthy of a discussion.
83. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
coulter,
You’re not even considering the taxes people pay in other countries to support UHC, which are exhorbitant. If people can’t afford healthcare now, as you assert, how will they afford the taxation?
Or do you only plan to tax the rich?
84. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
>>If people can’t afford healthcare now, as you assert, how will they afford the taxation?<<
Funny, we seem to be able to afford TRILLIONS for war in Iraq (and reconstruction, and their UHC) without raising taxes. We just put it on the national debt. . .
But I guess we just have different priorities. I value American health care and infrastructure and you value Iraq health care and rebuilding.
85. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
>>The WHO rankings? Please.
The level of care we receive vs the rest of the world is not even worthy of a discussion.<<
Where’s the data to back this claim up? Look at life span, overall health, infant mortality, etc. . .
I know facts are hard for some to understand, but you’ll have to provide some to prove your point. . . Otherwise, you are just exhibiting your blind belief in talk-radio propaganda.
86. Kahn | November 29th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
The liberal arguments defending the planting of at least four democratic operatives in a field of 36 questioners is pathetic. And so, why are the Democrats not willing to debate on Fox?
Integrity matters. And you don’t have it.
87. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
And here we go again, the circlular argument liberals love to play.
Asking questions over and over again that have already been answered as nauseum.
Bye
88. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
CF
Why did you pass over my last post and avoid the facts regarding Pharma R&D costs?
Could it be that the liberal montra is devoid of the need for facts?
89. coulterfan | November 29th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
>>Why did you pass over my last post and avoid the facts regarding Pharma R&D costs?
Could it be that the liberal montra is devoid of the need for facts?<<
That’s total Pharma propaganda, man. If that is true, why not charge R&D costs internationally? Why is it 1/2 price to re-import American-made drugs from Canada? I voted for our Republican Governor because HE has the sense to support re-importation (something, unfortunately that hasn’t come to fruition).
Look, in every other American industry, computers, Movies, electronics, TV, etc- the products cost LESS in America my Apple computer is FAR cheaper here than in Canada, as is the software. Some goes for Microsoft products. Are these companies more patriotic (to spread R^D costs out internationally) or (more likely) are pharma companies just milking insurance companies for every penny they can?
Why did rubber gloves for my wives’ births get billed to the insurance company at $5.00 a piece ($10.00 per set!) Is THAT because of R & D costs?
The most efficient health care in our country are Medicare and the VA. They have electronic records (which saves TONS of money) and the VA can negotiate for drug prices (like in Canada). If done correctly *which I’m certain we industrious Americans can*, I think our UHC could be the model for the rest of the world.
Private companies can’t do EVERYTHING better and cheaper (witness the relative pay and behavior of our military versus private contractors like Blackwater, which are REALLY destroying our image yet getting paid 6 TIMES more than military personel!) The Federal Highway system is another example- would you rather a for-profit company did the national highways?
The only problem is that I don’t really trust Hillary or Obama to take on insurance companies. In this realm, I think the Dems take as much money from the industry as Republicans and are all talk, unfortunately. We won’t see UHC in our lifetimes the way corporate lobbiests and donors run Washington. More campaign promises. . .
But I’m SURE GLAD we don’t have YOUR pathetic candidates!
90. Dittohead4Life | November 30th, 2007 at 5:54 am
But I’m SURE GLAD we don’t have YOUR pathetic candidates!
Pathetic? Good God, girlfriend, at least we have candidates. With the Donkaroaches, it’s “send in the clowns.”
The CNN YouTube GOP Debates–a botched joke. Anderson Vanderbilt should resign and go join Overbite and Christine Matthews over at MSLSD…
91. coulterfan | November 30th, 2007 at 8:52 am
If one’s only debate tactic is name-calling, it’s not worth responding to.
Plus, one should be able to think for oneself rather than taking a racist right wing demagogue’s word as the Gospel.
92. navydad | November 30th, 2007 at 10:03 am
CF
Have you ever owned your own business?
The cost of doing business grows as sales increase…especially in the pharma industry due to liability and yes, you guessed it, Tort lawsuits that you and I-as consumers-pay for.
BTW, please name one government health care program that runs in the black.
“The Federal Highway system is another example- would you rather a for-profit company did the national highways?”
Absolutely I would! Have you been to california and watched a Caltrans crew at work? That’s where the “self-standing shovel” was invented.
93. Sunny | November 30th, 2007 at 10:22 am
“My wife and I have friends that adopted two chinese boys–how about that Sunny…Chinese boys–and the reason, which was sold to them by their Chinese advocate, was “they didn’t have a home and the parents couldn’t take care of them.” Okay, fine, but when it came right down to it, they admitted that there was a better chance that Chinese children would fare better in school and life in general with a caucasian family than an African American baby….now that’s hypocrisy!”
Why is it hypocritical to want to adopt children that will thrive in the environment you can provide for them? You prefer that one adopt children that will struggle with the cultural differences they will encounter - even though the children may be American born? You are so shallow. You would rather criticize and put down a couple that adopts a child in need of a loving home, regardless of where the child comes from, than to offer praise for someone who has the capability to caring and loving a child in need. I believe that if a couple has the ability and desire to adopt a child, that is their business of where and who they make their choices. Who do you think you are to make such a decision for another?
“And how about that Sunny”?? your friends adopted two Chinese boys (that is very unusual), but my question is - do they regret their decision? I doubt it. That is the beauty of the country navydad - we can choose how we live our lives. I choose not to be negative - unlike you, who constantly puts down others. I choose to expand my tolerance of others unlike you, in your very narrow box of what is acceptable. I choose to KNOW that we are all God’s children, and not believe that only those who think as I do are His own. I choose to expand my knowledge of the world and respect different cultures. You are so overly judgmentmental of others, however, I do not know what your credentials are that allow you such an expert in EVERYTHING! The best I can tell from all of your posts, is that you have a son in the Navy. What have YOU done that gives you credibility?
94. coulterfan | November 30th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Alright, Navydad. Despite there being massive tort reform in some states, health care costs are spiraling out of control. Again, why is it often half-price to re-import American-made meds from Canada? Why do RUBBER GLOVES cost $10.00 per pair?
If you think that private companies are more efficient, why are Blackwater (and other private contractors) paid up to 6 times what our military men and women are paid? Perhaps you think we should FULLY privatize the military? Maybe we could also privatize the police and fire departments too? So if you need police to investigate a crime or the fire dept to put out a house fire, you have to pay them upfront?
In my extensive experience, tollways are often WORSE than the Federal and State Highway system.
So, I guess that you’re saying that Pharma companies ARE less patriotic than technology companies, the movie and entertainment industry, etc?
And BTW, if Democratic policies are ‘bad for business’, why are the MOST LIBERAL STATES the most prosperous? California, New York, Massachesetts, etc- they ALL have VERY liberal policies but amongst the richest states (in fact, California is the 5th largest economy in the WORLD!) So much for Dems being ‘bad for business’. . .
Why aren’t Mississippi, Arkansas, Utah, and other ‘Conservative’ states doing as well?
95. phnx | November 30th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Despite there being massive tort reform in some states, health care costs are spiraling out of control. Again, why is it often half-price to re-import American-made meds from Canada? CF
You obviously know NOTHING about tort law. Ever heard of venue shopping or judge shopping?? This is the practise of seeking the most advantageous venue (location for those of you in Rio Linda) and the most plaintiff favorable judge to hear the case. So the fact that there has been tort reform in some states is virtually meaningless for most companies who can be sued in places like Mississippi, which are known for huge plaintiff awards.
“Why do RUBBER GLOVES cost $10.00 per pair?”
CF
Simple, its one of the ways hospitals try to cover all of their unreimbursed expenses, for example for treating illegal aliens.
In addition, the cost of processing claims has gone through the roof due to all of the paperwork required by both the government and the insurance companies.
OBTW: Hospitals have to carry liability insurance as well, and guess what…they have been skyrocketing, and the cost is passed on to the consuming public.
So like I said before, the key to lowered healthcare costs are NATIONAL tort reform and deportation of illegal aliens.
96. navydad | November 30th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Sunny
You can’t see the irony in the left claiming abject poverty in America and then wanting to save Chinese children from the throes of communism?
BTW, if we are all God’s children, then why not adopt an African American baby?
Lose the bs selfrighteousnous and answer the freakin question….please!
97. navydad | November 30th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
CF
Don’t confuse my support of capitalism for my displeasure with being gouged.
The fact of the matter is exactly how phnx spelled it out….if the bottom line is affected, adjust accordingly. If the consumer disagrees with the adjustment, they’ll either pay or they won’t.
The problem with health care is similar to fuel prices, once they go up, they’ll never come down….that’s reality and until the ambulance chasers run out of gold plated bumpers, health care costs will remain high. Unless of course, Hitlery is elected, then you’ll witness “the” largest health care cluster-screw in the history of America. Umm..boy, universal health care. Yeah that’s the ticket. Just think of all those MDs that’ll be changing occupations and the colleges that’ll be affected by low enrollment.
BTW CF, how many MDs have you known that have left America to practice medicine?
98. Records Births Marriages&hellip | January 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Marriage Record
Winnebago County IL Clerk
99. Hentai Videl Hentai Tench&hellip | February 21st, 2008 at 11:18 am
Hentai Videl Hentai Tenchi Hentai
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
100. Hentai Raven Hentai Henta&hellip | March 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Hentai Raven Hentai Hentai Clips
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
101. Sex Girls Having Sex Roug&hellip | March 15th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Sex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view