Bush goes off script again

[pseudobrit]

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041025/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp&cid=694&ncid=716)
In a television interview, Bush said it is "up in the air" whether the nation can ever be fully safe from another terror attack and suggested terrorists may still be contemplating ways to disrupt the election

Whoops. A few weeks back it was "I don't think you can win it" and now it's "up in the air."

Contrary to what the spin team says to counter the statements said in these interviews, these aren't merely indicitive of Bush's lack of eloquence or ineptitude with the English language because they're exactly opposite of what his regular, on-script message is.

This is what Bush truly believes, but we see it only in slip-ups and "misstatements".

[solvs]

Yet another "Freudian Slip". You'd think people would open their eyes. How any sane person could have laughed after he said "we will not have an all volunteer army", I'll never know. Even if we don't, it was a pretty stupid thing to say.

"That's just one of those... exaggerations". You get a cookie. That's what happens when you're surrounded by yes men, and oblivious to the obvious.

[IJ Reilly]

In response to this slip up, I heard a report of Kerry accusing Bush of "sending mixed signals."

Ziiiing!

[winwintoo]

In a Canadian eh! poll this morning, 39% of Canadians were more worried about Bush being re-elected than they were interested in the last federal election in Canada (only a couple of months ago - which should have been hotly contested since the party in power was wracked by all kinds of money scandals)

Strangely, there was little heat generated by our federal election and the same party got re-elected (albeit with a new leader) Some folks were hoping that the Quebec party (that can only field candidates in Quebec) would gain enough seats to take over the parliament - don't know how that would have worked.

Anyway getting back to the US election. In Canada, we re-elected the same party because the other parties were less organized and we know we can vote these guys out whenever we want to - we're not stuck with them for 4 years like you are. We'll give them a while and let the other parties get better organized, pick stronger leaders, and then give them the heave-ho.

You people can't do that. And worst of all, whoever you elect, because of your foreign policies, affects the whole world, and Canada more than any other country (with the exception of Iraq and whoever they bomb next) and we don't get a say in who you elect.

Both candidates have said they're going to come to Canada to get drugs - did they ask us first if that's ok?? Do we have any say in the matter?? They act like Canada is just like Home Depot - we'll go to Home Depot and get the lumber. Well, what if Home Depot is closed - did you ever think of that?

No, we're tired of Bush and Kerry both. No matter who you elect, we're going to be pushed around by them and then after those four years are up, we'll be pushed around by Hillary - "I don't know what happened to the power, but I know it started in Canada" - Clinton, 'cuz it looks like for sure she's in line after Kerry.

I could go on, but who's listening,
margaret

[wowser]

Cool! I think this puts Kerry up by %0.002 (with a %0.002 margin of error)

[katchow]

Both candidates have said they're going to come to Canada to get drugs - did they ask us first if that's ok?? Do we have any say in the matter?? They act like Canada is just like Home Depot - we'll go to Home Depot and get the lumber. Well, what if Home Depot is closed - did you ever think of that?


i'm not sure what to make of your analogy...there are already canadian companies who would like to sell our drugs back to us. its business, not a hand-out. my instinct is that if a ban were lifted, the drug companies would either raise canadian prices, or lower u.s. prices. I'm guessing probably both. Either way I don't think it will last long before the drug companies make some changes to their price structure to make it less desirable to re-import. However, in the meantime i see it being a valuable bargaining tool. just my 2 cents...and could be completely wrong, i'm always confused when it comes to markets and business.

[IJ Reilly]

I could go on, but who's listening,

It depends on how much you plan on going on.

FWIW, we are only "stuck" with a President for four years -- the entire House of Representatives, and 1/3 of the Senate, is up for reelection every two years. We could talk about a lot of problems in the US political system, but the length of the terms of office isn't one of them.

[pseudobrit]

It depends on how much you plan on going on.

FWIW, we are only "stuck" with a President for four years -- the entire House of Representatives, and 1/3 of the Senate, is up for reelection every two years. We could talk about a lot of problems in the US political system, but the length of the terms of office isn't one of them.

I wish this were totally true.

When you elect a president, you run a chance of electing a few Supreme Court justices, whom you inherit for nearly the rest of their lives.

You also elect whatever wars and deficits/debts that leader manages to get us into. But we needn't worry so much about them, because our children and grandchildren inherit them.

[winwintoo]

A few years ago (pick a year) there was a panic about social security going broke so 60 Minutes or some other newsmagazine program went to a retirement community in Florida and asked some of the old folks what they thought about that. The general consensus was that it was unfair that these old people should be asked to do with less because of decisions that people made 30 and 40 years ago.

I guess either the reporter was too polite to ask or maybe they just didn't think of it, but the first thing that crossed my mind was, well you old toad, you're 70 now, let's see, 30 or 40 years ago, who would have been making the decisions, oh, yeah, that would be YOU!

Margaret

[IJ Reilly]

I wish this were totally true.

When you elect a president, you run a chance of electing a few Supreme Court justices, whom you inherit for nearly the rest of their lives.

You also elect whatever wars and deficits/debts that leader manages to get us into. But we needn't worry so much about them, because our children and grandchildren inherit them.

Right, but that wasn't the point being made. Or at least I don't think it was.

[solvs]

In response to this slip up, I heard a report of Kerry accusing Bush of "sending mixed signals."

Ziiiing!
Well it's not like they could have said anything bad about his Vietnam record (Bush and Cheney not having them). Oh, wait... yes they did. :rolleyes: That's what happens when you say something like that. It can come back to bite you in the butt. Kinda like when Asslee Simpson made that comment about how bad lip-syncing is a couple of months ago. Oops. Hypocrites.

[Roger1]

Both candidates have said they're going to come to Canada to get drugs - did they ask us first if that's ok?? Do we have any say in the matter?? They act like Canada is just like Home Depot - we'll go to Home Depot and get the lumber. Well, what if Home Depot is closed - did you ever think of that?

margaret

Why would we want your drugs?? The FDA sez they could be DANGEROUS FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION!!!!! :p That should tell you what the FDA thinks about Canadians. :p

[winwintoo]

You guys SOLD us the drugs in the first place, now you want us to sell them back and on top of that now you're telling us they're dangerous and both candidates want them.

REPEAT: BOTH CANDIDATES WANT YOU TO HAVE DANGEROUS DRUGS!!!

:eek: :eek:

Margaret

[katchow]

though i find roger1's post to be utterly simple-minded and mean-spirited, Winwintoo, I don't understand how you keep implying that we are begging canada to sell us drugs. there is already interest in this from both sides.

[winwintoo]

though i find roger1's post to be utterly simple-minded and mean-spirited, Winwintoo, I don't understand how you keep implying that we are begging canada to sell us drugs. there is already interest in this from both sides.

Where is the interest from this side? What sense would that make??

Most of the drugs we get here are manufactured in the US aren't they? If we can get them and sell them cheaper up here, why can't the price be lower down there?

Canada negotiated cheaper prices based on a population of 30 million people. If we suddenly start supplying a population of 300 million don't you think some bean-counter at the drug companies is going to go "hmmmm, this isn't what we contracted for" and put a stop to our supply.

Do you think Canada wants that? Are you all so arrogant that you think we should want that?

Negotiate your own lower drug prices with your own drug companies and leave our contracts alone.

Margaret

[katchow]

Where is the interest from this side? What sense would that make??


CanaRx to name one firm. maybe you could protest.

Most of the drugs we get here are manufactured in the US aren't they? If we can get them and sell them cheaper up here, why can't the price be lower down there?


we foot the bill for research and developement (to be fair we pay for a lot of advertising in the us too).

Canada negotiated cheaper prices based on a population of 30 million people.


Believe me, they would charge more if they could.



If we suddenly start supplying a population of 300 million don't you think some bean-counter at the drug companies is going to go "hmmmm, this isn't what we contracted for" and put a stop to our supply.


probably. or they might be forced to price drugs fairly here too. Afterall, we are the country that provides them the environment for prosperity.

Negotiate your own lower drug prices with your own drug companies and leave our contracts alone.


i understand your frustration. can you understand ours?

[Roger1]

though i find roger1's post to be utterly simple-minded and mean-spirited, Winwintoo, I don't understand how you keep implying that we are begging canada to sell us drugs. there is already interest in this from both sides.

Hmm. I thought the smilies would give my comment away as humor. But you know how us simpltons think. :confused:

BTW: Maybe winwintoo's opinion about us begging is based on the busloads of old people heading north to buy their medicine at a cheaper price. Oh, let' s not forget about the flu vaccination shortage. That also caused a few people to head north.

[winwintoo]

Hmm. I thought the smilies would give my comment away as humor. But you know how us simpltons think. :confused:

BTW: Maybe winwintoo's opinion about us begging is based on the busloads of old people heading north to buy their medicine at a cheaper price. Oh, let' s not forget about the flu vaccination shortage. That also caused a few people to head north.

Well, I DID think you were joking - and I still do. I think the whole debate is a big joke.

To see two supposedly intelligent men (who are vying for the top job in the world) stand up there and argue about who will be the first to import drugs from Canada made me laugh. Don't either of them know where the drugs come from in the first place??

On our news today they showed 500 elderly people, some of whom had driven for as much as 11 hours, lined up at a clinic in one of our border towns to get flu shots. They looked like they were having a blast, and the town had rolled out the red carpet for them, but what a shame.

I do know what anyone else is allowed to know about the cost of developing drugs, and believe me if I thought letting the drugs back across the border would solve anything, I'd say have at it, but I'm afraid it would only open another can of worms. As soon as that started happening, you'd have pharmacists on your side of the border screaming bloody murder about the unfairness of it all - and they'd be right.

Personally I don't give a toot, just don't mess with my supply of Prozac :D :D :D

Margaret

[katchow]

Hmm. I thought the smilies would give my comment away as humor. But you know how us simpltons think.

BTW: Maybe winwintoo's opinion about us begging is based on the busloads of old people heading north to buy their medicine at a cheaper price. Oh, let' s not forget about the flu vaccination shortage. That also caused a few people to head north.

i apologize if overreacted a bit roger. you know how us big dumb americans can get :)

i just think the anger is a little misplaced. we (in the u.s.) are "begging" our gov't to allow the trade. canadian companies are waiting to capatalize on it.

[Roger1]

Yeah, I'm a B.D.A. also. Big Dumb Anim... er, I mean American. :)

[pseudobrit]

we foot the bill for research and developement (to be fair we pay for a lot of advertising in the us too).

************. We foot the bill for shareholder dividends, stock price increases and executive bonuses.

The federal share of all national health R&D expenditures is estimated to be about 42 percent, compared to 47 percent for private industry. The remaining 10 percent is funded by non-profit foundations and other sources. (see figure 1).

source (http://www.cptech.org/pharm/pryor.html)

[katchow]

The federal share of all national health R&D expenditures is estimated to be about 42 percent, compared to 47 percent for private industry. The remaining 10 percent is funded by non-profit foundations and other sources. (see figure 1).

i'm confused. i don't think i understand the figure. what is the 47% for private industry? so ,42% is what the government spends? to their own agencies or to the drug companies? i'm sorry to be ignorant, could you explain it to me?