[Merged] 2004 US Presidential Election

very odd, he seemed fair and balanced until he kept talking about moore and called him a extremist. He also focused a lot on the bad sides the kerry and edwards

Originally Posted by downquark1

Oh this is classic O'reilly:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...nion&4&wvx-300

The key weakness in that speech was the wildly different assessments used to define 'Liberal'. In arriving at a 'Liberal rating' for Edwards and Kerry, an undisclosed scale by which their Senate voting records could be judged was used. This resulted in apparently high overall scores, in the 80s and 90s percentage wise. But, in assessing whether the American public considers itself Liberal, the simple question 'do you consder yourself to be a Liberal' was used. This is totally unscientific, because you have no 'control' questions to establish what the person asked understands by the word 'Liberal'. This makes any attempt to use this data to show the Democrat candidates as out of step with public opinon completely meaningless.

[downquark1]

Is being a liberal and a socialist mutually exclusive?

thats a better way of putting it

Originally Posted by downquark1

Is being a liberal and a socialist mutually exclusive?

depends on who fox news is supporting....

Originally Posted by downquark1

Is being a liberal and a socialist mutually exclusive?

O'Reilly seems to think so, he makes that distinction when talking about Michael Moore. I would have assumed not; Labour would still call itself 'socialist' yet there's no doubt that the Lib Dems are currently left of Labour on the political spectrum.

[Jerrek]

This is getting better and better. I, for one, didn't know too much about Edwards, but lookie here how he made his money:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=39327

Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections.

As a result of such lawsuits, there are now more than four times as many Caesarean sections as there were in 1970. But curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy. As the New York Times reported: "Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins." All those Caesareans have, however, increased the mother's risk of death, hemorrhage, infection, pulmonary embolism and Mendelson's syndrome.

(emphasis added)

In addition, the "little guys" Edwards claims to represent are having a lot more trouble finding doctors to deliver their babies these days as obstetricians leave the practice rather than pay malpractice insurance in excess of $100,000 a year.

In one of Edwards' silver-tongued arguments to the jury on behalf of a girl born with cerebral palsy, he claimed he was channeling the unborn baby girl, Jennifer Campbell, who was speaking to the jurors through him:

"She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.'"

Hmm, yes, interesting. Very interesting. I find it quite ... unsettling that he can claim that, and then turn around and support murdering unborn babies.

While making himself fabulously rich by taking a one-third cut of his multimillion-dollar verdicts coaxed out of juries with junk science and maudlin performances, Edwards has the audacity to claim, "I was more than just their lawyer; I cared about them. Their cause was my cause."

If he cared so deeply, how about keeping just 10 percent of the multimillion-dollar jury awards, rather than a third? In fact, as long as these Democrats are so eager to raise the taxes of "the rich," how about a 90 percent tax on contingency fees?

(emphasis added)

Edwards was one of the leading opponents of a bill in the North Carolina Legislature that would have established a fund for all babies born with cerebral palsy. So instead of all disabled babies in North Carolina being compensated equitably, only a few will win the jury lottery †“ one-third of which will go to trial lawyers like Edwards, who insists he doesn't care about the money.

This guy is a *******. Nothing more.

You're article fails to state one very important point, when was the theory about caesarian sections discredited? You are correct, it has been discredited, but the article you linked to talks about a rise in the rate of sections in 1970, logic dictates that the court case(s) occurred before this date.

I`ll admit, I've not read these references, they were cited in an article that covers amongst other things the point you were making, but you might notice something interesting about them.

Blair E and Stanley FJ. Intrapartum asphyxia: a rare cause of cerebral palsy. J Pediatr 1988;112(4):515-519.

MacDonald D. Cerebral palsy and intrapartum fetal monitoring. N Engl J Med 1996;334(10):659-60.

Phelan JP and Ock Ahn M. Perinatal observations in forty-eight neurologically impaired term infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171(2):424-31.

Richmond S et al. The obstetric management of fetal distress and its association with cerebral palsy. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83(5 Pt 1):643-6.

Did you manage to spot the important point? Don`t worry, if you didn`t I`ll highlight it for you, the research is modern. Now, you may argue that there was earlier research I've failed to cite, you may be correct, but here is in article published in 2001

http://chealth.canoe.ca/columns.asp?...articleid=1573

that specifically mentions "recent" research, which would strongly suggest we are not talking about circa 1970. BTW, I made sure that I included a link to a medical site so that we can get the facts without any political rhetoric.

Medical science dynamic, theories rise and fall with new discoveries. I've seen treatments for cancer using radiation therapy that would make your eyes pop out, almost literally. Try them today and you'd be deafened by the collective lawyers shouting malpractice. At the time the were believed to be the best treatment on offer.

A case can only be argued on what is accepted as medically correct at the time the case was heard. Edwards would have been arguing on the basis of accepted medical knowledge at the time. This, we now know was incorrect, but if you think that court cases can be argued on the basis of research that isn`t conducted for another 20 years then all your credibility goes flying out the nearest window, probably without pause to even open it first.

One of the biggest criticisms directed at people like Michael Moore is that they pick and choose facts and slap them together to form their argument without any consideration of context. If that is true, then you must be a great admirer of his tactics.

Nearest topic i could find that is related

Anyway, With Kerry accpeting the nomination tommorow and having the big speech what do you think his chances are really like? It is neck and neck and usually swing voters who have not made up their minds by election day vote for the other party. I think its something like 10% undicided so it really is down to the wire

[Jerrek]

Bush is going to win. In the last election, Al Gore was 15 points ahead this time of year. The Republicans haven't started campaigning yet. They haven't held their convention yet. And, Bush may actually pick Guilliani as his running mate. Plus, Ralph Nader is running.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Bush is going to win. In the last election, Al Gore was 15 points ahead this time of year. The Republicans haven't started campaigning yet. They haven't held their convention yet. And, Bush may actually pick Guilliani as his running mate. Plus, Ralph Nader is running.

Of course he'll win- he'll get less votes than Kerry, that should do the trick.

An if it looks a bit dodgy his brother will bail him out with a win in Florida

[Jerrek]

NRA will probably endorse Bush too. PROVIDED, the ban on assault weapons is not renewed.

It expires September 16th. YAY YAY YAY.

Here is one possible outcome:


Compiled 2004 Prediction Map
Dem: 264 - Rep: 274

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Bush is going to win. In the last election, Al Gore was 15 points ahead this time of year. The Republicans haven't started campaigning yet. They haven't held their convention yet. And, Bush may actually pick Guilliani as his running mate. Plus, Ralph Nader is running.

I was reserching the last election and Gore was always behind in the polls? Up to the last day when it went to the wire. Also the republicans have aired a lot more negitive ads against kerry, only a few dont have a mention about kerry one of them playing on 9/11, (see bushs website) than kerry against bush (see kerrys website) so both sides are going for it.

Gulliani would be a good choice for Bush due to the 9/11 links but it will look like he is taking advantage of 9/11 (lets face it, Apart from 0 tolarance Gulliani was not the biggest figure in politics before 9/11)

I think it will again depend on the swing states especially ohio, i also think folorda will go to kerry but the other big states will be 50/50.

As for Bush i think that if things continue the same way he will be out of office, he needs a event to help him out and also the iraq mess to be sorted out he also has to answer a lot of questions such as the fact that for the first time since the war the employment has gone down under him, the econamy is worse than it was with clinton and also the screw up over iraq

Kerry i think will just wing it if things stay the same but he needs a big speech tommorow to give him some 'presenance' he is a very dull candidate so far so he needs to improve his speechs and look a lot more like a leader

Originally Posted by Jerrek

NRA will probably endorse Bush too. PROVIDED, the ban on assault weapons is not renewed.

It expires September 16th. YAY YAY YAY.

Here is one possible outcome:


Compiled 2004 Prediction Map
Dem: 264 - Rep: 274

sound about right but i think flordia will go to the red. Ohio will be really close. I dont think bush will get both ohio and florida and that will cost him the election will the college votes being so close after the results of the other states

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Damien

I was reserching the last election and Gore was always behind in the polls?

No. Immediately after the DNC his numbers jumped.


Gore Pulls 10 Points Ahead in Newsweek Poll
September 2, 2000
In a new national presidential poll conducted by Newsweek Magazine,
Vice President Al Gore seems to have pulled substantially ahead of
George W. Bush, just as Bush launches a blitz television ad campaign
making attacks on Gore's credibility.

Newsweek Poll results, nation-wide (Aug. 30-31):
Al Gore 49%
George W. Bush 39%
Ralph Nader 3%
Pat Buchanan 1%

Iowa Poll sponsored by the Des Moines Register (Aug. 23-30):
Al Gore: 45%
George W. Bush 37%

Vermont Poll by Mason-Dixon:
Al Gore 49%
George W. Bush 36%

Also the republicans have aired a lot more negitive ads against kerry, only a few dont have a mention about kerry one of them playing on 9/11, (see bushs website) than kerry against bush (see kerrys website) so both sides are going for it.

What are you saying? Your English is hard to follow.

Gulliani would be a good choice for Bush due to the 9/11 links but it will look like he is taking advantage of 9/11 (lets face it, Apart from 0 tolarance Gulliani was not the biggest figure in politics before 9/11)

Maybe liberals will see it like that, because it is hard to say something bad about Guilliani without getting a public retaliation. The majority of the people won't see it as a negative mark and it may swing more people to vote for Bush.

I think it will again depend on the swing states especially ohio, i also think folorda will go to kerry but the other big states will be 50/50.

Ohio will vote Republican. And I'm reasonably confident Florida will too.

As for Bush i think that if things continue the same way he will be out of office, he needs a event to help him out

No. He can continue just like he is doing right now. He is a terrific guy and a good president. And, the Republican National Convention is coming up. That can be one event that will get the message out a bit.

After that, the campaign will kick into high gear.

and also the iraq mess

There is no "mess" in Iraq. Maybe for liberals, who expected a utopia of love and flowers after 2 days there. Most of us are more realistic. Iraq has its own government now, and the Iraq police and army are slowly taking over patrolling and guard duty.

You can bet that there will be Iraqis featured in upcoming Republican campaign ads and probably at the Republican Convention... something Democrats wouldn't dare do.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200407/07272004.html#convention

Had a Boston taxi driver yesterday from Iraq. He's going back home to visit his parents in a few weeks. He was none-too-pleased with the Democrats. He believes that Democrats hate his country and want Saddam to be back in power. He was adamant that things are much better in Iraq than the media is saying ... and he's at a loss as to why all of these media types won't tell the truth

the econamy is worse than it was with clinton

No its not... It is better. We had a quarter with 8% growth. And a few more all over 4% growth. That is more than anytime since Reagan. Unemployment is also down, to 5.6%.

In the late 90s, when unemployment dropped so low under Clinton, media hailed it as "an all-time low of 5.6%" and what a great shape the economy is in. We'll apply the same standards.

Kerry i think will just wing it if things stay the same but he needs a big speech tommorow to give him some 'presenance' he is a very dull candidate so far so he needs to improve his speechs and look a lot more like a leader

People don't trust him. And, people don't know where he stands. I for one will not vote for someone who I don't know where he stands.