SuperJerk

Yes, if someone has this link, please post it.

^I see plenty of conservatives praise Hannity and O'Reilly.^ 1) It'll alledgedly benefit people our age when we retire, but not current retirees. 2) As incompetent as the government is, I trust them more than I trust private investment firms and the stock market. 3) Bush's plan is not feasible because it will add multi-trillion dollars of new debt which will take generations to pay off, and allow private firms to have the opportunity to screw people out of their retirement money. Bush says that Social Security is going bankrupt, which is true. However, his plan just accelerates the bankruptcy.

Someone buy this man a dictionary. He mentioned her while DEFENDING homosexuals. That's hardly going to make anyone want to vote for him over Cheney and Bush. Your conspiracy theory has a huge flaw. Edwards got 2 things wrong, Cheney got 2,000 things wrong. I'm not a fan of Edwards by any stretch, I'm just saying its hard to win a debate when the other guy makes up facts as he goes along the way Cheney did.

How? Bush will need to borrow TRILLIONS to get his program to work. The only way this program is going to pay for itself is after (a) all the people who will ever get Social sEcurity benefits are dead, and (b) we pay off the TRILLIONS of dollars Bush will have to borrow to keep the current system running while the current workforces' contributions are redirected into individual investments. This SHOULD have been done MANY years ago. The longer we wait, the more it'll cost. The OTHER option is to raise FICA taxes to a borderline comical level to pay for a system that might not be solvent when I reach retirement age. No offense, but fuck that logic. No, that doesn't deal with the fundamental problem. The only solution that will work is privatization --- which even Bush doesn't support. Like I said, in order for Bush's plan to work, he'll have to borrow TRILLIONS. His cure is already off to a horrible start. Its not a no-win situation for him. If Bush's plan passes, it'll mean windfall profits for the firms that get to handle the private accounts (i.e. his campaign contributors). My plan is common sense. If you're spending too much money, the easiest and most effective way to stop would be to cut expenses. There's no reason, given the advances in medicine, the retirement age for our generation can't be raised higher. Yeah, the Democrats would claim he was starving the elderly, just like they did to the Republicans in 1995. And they'd be wrong, just like they were in 1995. Remember all that "political capital" Bush earned with his 51% victory? THAT'S what he should spend it on, not some risky scheme that would add TRILLIONS to the national debt and make investment firms even richer.

1) You can't spam a telephone poll conducted by a research agency. 2) I'm glad you agree with me about margin of error. 3) For the hundreth time, Kerry didn't "gay bait". He pointed out something which everyone already knew and said "I'm okay with that." Gay-baiting would have been if he implied that there was something wrong with her being gay, which he did not. 4) Factcheck.org does a fair and balanced analysis. They look at the FACTS, not interpetations of them. They've also done plenty of analysis that's been unfavorable to the Democrats, you know. 5) My point in bringing up the lie about meeting Edwards was that he said something that wasn't true in order to make Edwards look bad. That moment in etched in the minds of anyone who watched the debate, and thus affects the interpretation of who won. Would Cheney have still won had he not said that? Yes. Cheney had plenty of other lies to say that night as well, as the article I mentioned (which I challenge you to find one inaccurate statement in) pointed out.

It looks to me like they are saying you should be able to establish a voluntary part to increase the money you would already be getting under the plan. Which is EXACTLY what Bush's plan involves. Bush's private accounts would REPLACE contributions made to Social Security, not supplement them. WHY? Why must it be done? That's what I don't get. You guy's say its because Social Security doesn't have enough money to survive, but Bush's plan would just make things worse. Bush's plan would require MORE money than the current plan does, because you'd have to pay for both the private accounts of younger people and pay out benefits to retirees. A better plan would be to raise the retirement age and cut the rate at which benefits increase.

The same polls the DNC sent out e-mails asking its supporters to spam? I was here for 2 of the 3, and I can say that it was definitely not the case here. It was not the case on ANY post-debate analysis program after the last 2 debates. I was referring to the polls conducted by various news agencies, not what the talking heads on TV thought. Actually, he pulled even. Depends on which poll you looked at. "Pulled even" would be consistent with the margin of error, so you are technically correct. That's a pretty subjective analysis. How "closely" did you watch? Is "as can be" an actual measurable term? My analysis was that he competently presented his side, and factually countered many of Bush's arguments. Its very easy to win a debate when you're allowed to lie your ass off the way Cheney did. The most remembered line of the debate? "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." And it was complete bullshit. I can't imagine the news media letting any other person get away with saying anything so stupid or easily disprovable. Here's an excellent article about the VP debate: http://factcheck.org/article272.html

Says you and you alone. Says anybody who actually watched the debates. Polls conducted after each debate showed Kerry won each round. If you're going to claim "anyone who watched" as evidence, you should at least have evidence that actually backs your claim up. The majority of the people watching clearly thought that Kerry won. Kerry won the first debate so decisively that he immediately shot ahead of Bush in the polls for the week between the first and second debates. Like I said, polls conducted AT THE TIME show that Kerry won each debate. Bush's best showing was the second debate, in which he showed a greater capacity to seem like a regular person (and WHY people consider that a qualification to be President is a mystery to me), but Kerry did a better job making points and counter-points to Bush's arguments. People who think Bush won all three debates, or even two of the three debates, are letting their political bias and natural skepticism cloud their ability to rate his actual performance. The third debate went only slightly better for Bush than the first debate did, as Bush got stuck using "No Child Left Behind" as an answer to virtually every question. There is no individual part of the campaign which anyone can point to as a reason to vote for someone. Bush gave better/more involving stump speeches and had better presented convention, while Kerry did a better job in one-on-one debates. I think the majority of Americans felt that while Kerry handled himself better in the debates, they were electing a leader and not a debate team captain, hence the outcome of the election. There is nothing from this campaign which Kerry can point to as give as an example of his leadership ability (although I'd argue his Senate record says otherwise, but that was not used for whatever reason). He was asking people to trust he could lead based on plans he never clearly explained and a military record from over 30 years ago, and assuming they'd find him an acceptable alternative to Bush who showed he can lead by actually leading. Bush didn't need to win the debates because the American people know that being a good debater isn't a prerequisite to being President.

Ahem: I had to reread it a few times, but it seems as though they did, in fact, provdie what you asked for. And the quote is NOT how Hume characterized it how? FDR, hate to break it to you, is advocating Bush's plan. -=Mike Let's look again. It looks to me like they are saying you should be able to establish a voluntary part to increase the money you would already be getting under the plan. Is the interpretation of self-supporting to mean that: a) the "self" in "self-supporting" refers to the future retirees themselves should be responsible for saving the money or b) the "self" in "self-supporting" refers to the program itself being the source of the money for future retirees, rahter than contributions taken from the government's general fund. I would tend to think the latter is the case, since this sentence was about pension plans, rather than people. To draw a 100% accurate conclusion, however, you would need the entire speech/document which all of the quotes were lifted from, as you pointed out. There was enough of a quote was there to support Olbermann and James Roosevelt Jr.'s conclusion, but not to entirely prove it.

Shit, that got me good.

Ahem: I had to reread it a few times, but it seems as though they did, in fact, provdie what you asked for.

And shown at an accelerated number of frames per second.

If there was something more damning, smitty would have brought it up. I, obviously, didn't watch MSNBC as I had some nice static on another channel to watch. -=Mike Are you sure that static wasn't Fox News? They start to sound the same after a while. C'mon, you can do better than this. I would if I was actually being serious.

Yes, that thrills me to no end. I like it. -=Mike I have yet to encounter a radio talk show host that was knowledgable enough for me to take their opinion seriously. Limbaugh's just a glorified DJ who flunked out of college.

If there was something more damning, smitty would have brought it up. I, obviously, didn't watch MSNBC as I had some nice static on another channel to watch. -=Mike Are you sure that static wasn't Fox News? They start to sound the same after a while. MSNBC is my baby's momma.

Yes, that thrills me to no end.

Funny how Mike assumes that was the entire interview. I *love* MSNBC, by the way. I don't care if I am the only viewer. Their talk shows (and that's all these "news" networks have anymore) are far better than Fox or CNN.

Funaki = workrate.

I have no clue what you're talking about. Bush was the one who looked dumb. Kerry jumped on Bush at every opening. Remember the "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us" bit, and the President's angry and self-contradictory comeback? That was from the first debate. Kerry stomped Bush into the ground. It was probably the only thing he did right during the whole campaign.

Says you and you alone.

^I once heard he won some medals or something.^ Everyone knows the ability to make small talk with local officials in order to impress their children is a prerequisite for leading the free world. Yeah, I voted for Kerry. I based that vote on my belief that how good a campaign you run has nothing to do with how good a president you might be. Some of the best campaigns turned out to belong to some of the worst presidents. That, and he totally OMFG PWN3D~!!!!!!111 Bush during the debates. He made not have had a coherent plan on Iraq, he may have gave up on every southern state, he might have picked the most unhelpful running mate of all time, and he might be married to a woman with an unlimited ability to say stupid things in publci...but by God did he ever destroy Bush in those debates. You can't take that way from him.

Can one of the Christians on this board remind the rest of us what the penalty for blaphsemy is?

Still sounds like a cheap publicity stunt if you ask me, for reasons I already listed.

It was kinda weird. They started off with a half-hour block consisting of 10-minute (incl commercials) eps of Jem, Bigfoot and Robotix. Then, they moved to 15 minutes each with the shows rotating (I think they added a different show here as well). Finally, Jem got the full 1/2 hour, and the others went away. I think the 10/15 minute episodes were just the individual segments of the 30 minute versions. When Jem got her own 30 minute show, they reran the older 10/15 shows as complete episodes. I totally had to pull that shit out of the back of my mind.

I would venture to say yes. We're all sinners. That's kind of a given. Sin is a concept within a religious structure which I do not believe in. Just saying. Then you shouldn't have an opinion on that concept. I don't believe in murder either, but I can still have an opinion on it.