Wednesday night's Debate?

[jmarie]

I will start the thread by asking...Is it at 9:00?

[tbb113]

Yes, its at 9pm Eastern. Does anybody know the format?

[beckms]

Pretty sure it's at 9 Eastern. Although if you have any American spirit AT ALL you'll be watching the Sox beat the pants off of the Yankees!:D

[aggie94]

I assume the format will be similar to the first debate. The moderator is Bob Schieffer, CBS News' chief Washington correspondent and host of "Face the Nation."

DH was on campus for an interview today and said it was absolutely mobbed.

[lisalee]

Eva is right, the format is much like the 1st one and this one is to deal with domestic/social issues.

Lisa

[jmarie]

Gosh. Bush did GREAT! So proud of him. 2 out of 3.
Way to go BUSH!:D
Joyce

[lisas3575]

http://www.ideasmithdesign.com/clients/cookinglight/Picture%201.jpg

[badunnin]

The smirk returned.

[HejazSunKat]

Originally posted by badunnin
The smirk returned.

Oh YEAH! He really had that cranked up. He was even doing it while talking about partial birth abortion. :rolleyes:

[Jessica]

I only caught the second half of the debate but I read some of the transcripts this morning. I agreed with Kerry's comments on nearly all the issues. I also think that while both men dodged questions, Bush gave fewer straight answers, particularly to questions that mattered to me.

I can't say who won because I missed half, but the part I saw further clarified why I want to vote for Kerry.

Did anyone else think it funny that the two men were dressed identically? Even the ties were almost the same.

[MrsReber]

I heard on the news this morning that it was all numbers and no substance. I kind of have to agree. I probably watched more of this debate than I did of the previous 2. Yeah, he did smirk somewhat.

I still don't see how Kerry can implement all these plans without taxing the public to death. Am I missing something? (I'm asking this honestly, not as a dig to anyone).

Jessica, I did note the similarity of their outfits. I think it was the final debate "power tie" ensemble.

[badunnin]

The question I had last night of Bush was: what good is a tax credit of $1700 when people are out of work?

I'm also confused as to why we are now relying on Canada for flu vaccines when we don't trust them to provide us with quality prescription drugs? ("We're working with Canada to hopefully -- that they'll produce a -- help us realize the vaccine necessary to make sure our citizens have got flu vaccinations during this upcoming season.")

[MrsReber]

Quite honestly, we have really enjoyed the tax cuts because our local property taxes keep going up. We need that money to help offset that cost. that's a whole other topic!

[HejazSunKat]

Originally posted by badunnin
I'm also confused as to why we are now relying on Canada for flu vaccines when we don't trust them to provide us with quality prescription drugs? ("We're working with Canada to hopefully -- that they'll produce a -- help us realize the vaccine necessary to make sure our citizens have got flu vaccinations during this upcoming season.")

Good question. Can I ask a really stupid one (and I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know the answer to this): Why can't we produce flu vaccine here in America? Why are we reliant on Britain, Canada and God knows who else?

[Jessica]

Originally posted by HejazSunKat


Good question. Can I ask a really stupid one (and I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know the answer to this): Why can't we produce flu vaccine here in America? Why are we reliant on Britain, Canada and God knows who else?

It is not a stupid question. I would add: Why did we not have any backup vaccine? Flu is no joke. I believe the figure I heard is that in an average flu season, 36,000 Americans died of flu. That is 12 times the number killed on 9/11. Why was this not a priority? Flu killed millions in 1918 and even though we have better medicines now, the flu keeps changing so we could again find ourselves helpless against a superbug.

[Beth H]

I'm also confused as to why we are now relying on Canada for flu vaccines when we don't trust them to provide us with quality prescription drugs? ("We're working with Canada to hopefully -- that they'll produce a -- help us realize the vaccine necessary to make sure our citizens have got flu vaccinations during this upcoming season.")

I thought Bush's answer on the flu vaccine question was extremely poor - you could tell it caught him by surprise. But Kerry's response wasn't exactly wonderful, either.

Why can't we produce flu vaccine here in America?

I read a lengthy article about the whole vaccination production issue a while back - maybe in the NY Times? Making and distributing vaccines is not that profitable for the manufacturers/drug companies - thus, production suffers. The article was not directly about the flu vaccine, but I'm sure this plays a role in why the vaccine is made in England. I wish that Kerry could have incorporated that somehow in his answer.

They were giving the flu vaccine out at my grocery store yesterday (I didn't know it and just ran over to pick up a couple of things) - the line to get the shots was snaked up and down every aisle of the store. Apparently people were waiting about 5 hours for the shot - primarily elderly people who are in the high-risk group.

[CompassRose]

Originally posted by Beth H
Making and distributing vaccines is not that profitable for the manufacturers/drug companies - thus, production suffers.
And yet people complain that socialised medicine is a bad thing. Bad for whom?

Businesses and corporations, of course, the only "people" who truly matter. Now there's a piece of law that should get ashed.

[honeygirl1971]

Originally posted by Jessica

Did anyone else think it funny that the two men were dressed identically? Even the ties were almost the same.

My sister and I were talking on the phone while we watched, and we were laughing about this!! Some of the press had the same tie too. By the end we were saying, "He got the memo....he didn't...." etc. LOL!

I don't understand why some people [editing to say some people on TV, not people here] said that although Kerry was stronger on questions like taxes, jobs, health care, and so on, Bush was convincing when he talked about his personal faith. I guess his personal faith is important to some people, but to me that is irrelevant. I want to know what he's going to do for America, for people like me, not what he believes and what his faith does for him. I appreciated Kerry saying that his own faith is very important to him, but that it is personal and that it is not something to transfer to others through legislation...

Just my opinion, and I'll probably regret saying anything here since lately things have gotten so nasty...

[Grace]

Originally posted by badunnin
The question I had last night of Bush was: what good is a tax credit of $1700 when people are out of work?

I'm also confused as to why we are now relying on Canada for flu vaccines when we don't trust them to provide us with quality prescription drugs? ("We're working with Canada to hopefully -- that they'll produce a -- help us realize the vaccine necessary to make sure our citizens have got flu vaccinations during this upcoming season.")

The problem with getting prescription drugs through Canada is because just because they come from Canada doesn't mean they were manufactured in Canada. Canada gets drugs from India and a whole bunch of other countries where strict controls on how the drugs are produced are practically non-existent. No one is worried in the least about drugs that are actually produced in Canada (which is the case with the Flu vaccine).

[Grace]

The flu vaccine, as others have mentioned, is not a money maker like most drugs are. It IS subsidized by the government in this country - meaning our government contracts with manufacturers to produce at least a certain amount for which they will get paid no matter if no one wants to buy it, but only certain manufacturing plants are equipped to make the vaccine. And drug manufacturers are located around the world. If we have had no problems with the vaccines we've bought elsewhere in the past, why should we assume that this year there would be a problem? A contaminated batch could come from any plant, even one in America, so just making sure it's produced here is no guarantee of anything.

So now that the company that has made it for us in the past cannot deliver on the product, we have to go to the next available drug manufacturer who is equipped to make it, and it happens to be in Canada. I'm quite sure that if there were a company here doing it, we'd be going there for it. Not sure what the big hoopla is.

And lastly, since flu vaccines are only good for one season (meaning next year's strain will be different and a different vaccine will need to be manufactured), it doesn't make sense for a whole bunch of different companies to make it - then there'd be a glut and they wouldn't be able to sell the leftover stuff anywhere (unlike other drugs that don't change formulation from year to year) - it would get thrown out. So why would any company bother with that? It's not necessarily a simple cut and dried solution.

Editing to add my last point, that the flu vaccine is no guarantee of anything either. The researchers and developers have to GUESS at which strain they think will be the most dangerous one in any given year. They could be wrong. So the vaccine could very well not protect anyone from the actual strain going around even if there were enough of the vaccine for everyone. And there is also controversy over the safety of the vaccines.

I remember as a kid, NO ONE got flu vaccines. And honestly, I don't know of a single person who ever died of the flu. I'm not saying it's not dangerous, and I know the statistics say that many people die from it, but I would venture to guess that there are enough vaccines to cover the number of people that die. My point being that I don't necessarily believe that the flu vaccine is something that the average person needs. I think that the at-risk people need it (elderly, immune system deficient, the young, etc.) the most, and I think there's probably plenty to cover those people. I do believe that the media causes a frenzy to some degree, scaring people who might not really need it into feeling like they must have it. But that is just my opinion, or as Bob likes to put it, The World According To Grace :rolleyes:

[ClaraB]

Originally posted by Grace


The problem with getting prescription drugs through Canada is because just because they come from Canada doesn't mean they were manufactured in Canada. Canada gets drugs from India and a whole bunch of other countries where strict controls on how the drugs are produced are practically non-existent. No one is worried in the least about drugs that are actually produced in Canada (which is the case with the Flu vaccine). OK, I'll bite on this one. Yes, Canada imports drugs from other countries, but so does the US - in fact, both countries probably import many of the same drugs from the same factories in India etc. However, Canada does have a regulating agency that monitors the quality of drugs being sold in Canada, just the same as the US has. In fact, it's a real slap in the face to all Canadians to infer that inferior quality drugs are being sold in Canada than in the US.

Clara (who survived taking Canadian medications for 32 years, and is still taking them).

[Jessica]

Originally posted by Grace
It's not necessarily a simple cut and dried solution.

No, it is not. And I am not basing my vote on the flu vaccine--until this year I never even needed one. But flu is a public health issue. We know we can prevent thousands of deaths by vaccinating old people, babies and other vulnerable citizens. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to pay for more vaccines than we think we will need and to dump the extra if necessary. We have done so in past years.

[Grace]

I wouldn't disagree with that, Jessica. But I do think that many people who don't necessarily need it are out there getting it because they've been scared into doing it, and thus make the shortage for the at-risk people that much worse.

And I'm not sure that the government is at fault for a shortage. We don't know how much they ordered. But the problem is not because there wasn't enough ordered, it was because what was delivered was contaminated. Again, that could happen anywhere, even in the good ol US ofA.

Clara, I'm not saying that drugs from Canada are definitely of a lesser quality. Truthfully, I don't know enough about the issue to say what I believe. All I know is that that's the concern. I'm not sure why it's a concern, but when I do my research, I'll find out. My guess is the drugs they buy and test for their own country might not be the same ones they buy to sell on to other countries. Or they might not test the ones they plan to sell on. I don't know. I can't believe they're making up a concern that doesn't exist at all, but I guess that's a possibility too :confused: . But if so, then I'll be the first to agree with you guys.

[Jessica]

Originally posted by Grace

And I'm not sure that the government is at fault for a shortage. We don't know how much they ordered. But the problem is not because there wasn't enough ordered, it was because what was delivered was contaminated.

I think this is where we (politely :)) disagree. I don't blame the goverment for the shortage but I think it is the government's job to see that we have enough vaccine. Public health is part of the government's responsibility, IMO. There is always the risk of contamination and we should have had a backup plan. We have enough vaccine for measles and other diseases that affect the health of the public--why should flu be different?

At least at my doctor's office, you cannot get a vaccine if you are not in a high-risk group. I am considered high-risk because I am PG but my doctor says I should not get the vaccine until my second trimester, and it is unclear whether there will be vaccine left by then (second week of November). That would lead me to believe that we do not even have enough for the high-risk folks.

[Grace]

Originally posted by honeygirl1971


Just my opinion, and I'll probably regret saying anything here since lately things have gotten so nasty...

Not sure why you think anyone would respond in a nasty way to you. You stated your opinion in a way that doesn't demean anyone nor was it mean-spirited toward anyone. It's simply your opinion on how you feel on a particular issue and it's perfectly legitimate in my opinion.

For the record, I don't feel the same way as you do, but I can absolutely see where you're coming from with your perspective and I personally can respect that, and your post doesn't raise any hairs or feathers on my neck at all! :D

[ClaraB]

Originally posted by Grace
Clara, I'm not saying that drugs from Canada are definitely of a lesser quality. Truthfully, I don't know enough about the issue to say what I believe. All I know is that that's the concern. I'm not sure why it's a concern, but when I do my research, I'll find out. My guess is the drugs they buy and test for their own country might not be the same ones they buy to sell on to other countries. Or they might not test the ones they plan to sell on. I don't know. I can't believe they're making up a concern that doesn't exist at all, but I guess that's a possibility too :confused: . But if so, then I'll be the first to agree with you guys. Grace, Canadian pharmacies are selling the same drugs to Canadians and to Americans - in fact, some Canadians are becoming concerned that so many drugs are being sold to Americans that there may not be enough of some drugs for Canadians.

I think what's happening is that the pharmaceutical companies are leaning on the American government to stem the tide of imported drugs, because the US market (which has no price controls, unlike most other countries) is their big meal ticket, and they're afraid of losing any of their profits here. Color me cynical, I know...

[Beth H]

I wouldn't disagree with that, Jessica. But I do think that many people who don't necessarily need it are out there getting it because they've been scared into doing it, and thus make the shortage for the at-risk people that much worse.

I do agree with this - the media fuels people's fears about a vaccine shortage.

That would lead me to believe that we do not even have enough for the high-risk folks.

I agree with this, too, though. My husband is high-risk because he has asthma (and works at a high school) - I do not know if he will be able to get a shot this year or not as his allergy/asthma doctor and regular doctor are both out.

I remember as a kid, NO ONE got flu vaccines. And honestly, I don't know of a single person who ever died of the flu.

Most people are not at-risk from flu complications - but it's pretty frightening to read accounts of the flu pandemic that hit this country (and entire world) after the first World War. That strain, for whatever reason, seemed to hit teenagers and people in their twenties particularly hard. I'm not sure such a horrible epidemic could happen again with flu, as obviously with organizations like the CDC and WHO, we're much more knowledgable and better-prepared than before. But it's sobering to think about nonetheless.

[Grace]

Originally posted by Jessica


I think this is where we (politely :)) disagree. I don't blame the goverment for the shortage but I think it is the government's job to see that we have enough vaccine. Public health is part of the government's responsibility, IMO. There is always the risk of contamination and we should have had a backup plan. We have enough vaccine for measles and other diseases that affect the health of the public--why should flu be different?

At least at my doctor's office, you cannot get a vaccine if you are not in a high-risk group. I am considered high-risk because I am PG but my doctor says I should not get the vaccine until my second trimester, and it is unclear whether there will be vaccine left by then (second week of November). That would lead me to believe that we do not even have enough for the high-risk folks.

You always politely disagree, Jessica, and I enjoy a nice debate with you! Your perspective always challenges me to think, and your respectfulness of my opinions is very much appreciated.

I agree with you that it's the government's job to make sure we have enough vaccine. And I believe they're doing it? I mean the contaminated batch was just discovered, what, a week or two ago? And who's to say the backup plan isn't the plant they're going to in Canada? And IMO, comparing it to the measles vaccine or other diseases is a different animal. Firstly, it's mostly children that get those, not a whole population. Secondly, and this goes back to my other point, the strains of the measles vaccines doesn't change from year to year. They can keep producing the same stuff for measles, etc., year after year, ongoing. For the flu, the R&D people spend months each year figuring out which strain they will use to make the vaccines from. Then they have to spend time making it into a vaccine, then they have to actually get it produced. And then they have to calculate how much they think they're going to need. Way too many variables for there to be a perfect plan.

Flu season has just started, and I will reserve judgement on how I feel the government is handling things until I see A) if they've even chosen the right strain to make the vaccine for, and B) if they can't get another plant to make up the shortage in a timely manner.

But to say they've done a poor job when they've just been presented with the problem in the last few weeks isn't necessarily fair, IMO.

And that's The World According To Grace! :D (Can you tell I like that?!! Thanks Bob - even though I know you didn't mean it in a nice way, I'm taking it that way! :D )

[Grace]

Originally posted by ClaraB
Grace, Canadian pharmacies are selling the same drugs to Canadians and to Americans - in fact, some Canadians are becoming concerned that so many drugs are being sold to Americans that there may not be enough of some drugs for Canadians.

I think what's happening is that the pharmaceutical companies are leaning on the American government to stem the tide of imported drugs, because the US market (which has no price controls, unlike most other countries) is their big meal ticket, and they're afraid of losing any of their profits here. Color me cynical, I know...

No Clara, I think you have valid points, and I can be quite cynical too. I think (and I could be wrong, because I haven't researched it enough yet), that individual people who are buying from Canada are getting the supply that is bought, tested and meant for Canadians. I think the resale market is a different market and I don't think that those drugs (the ones individual pharmacies in Canada sell to patients directly) are the drugs the US is against buying. I would without one second's hesitation take any prescription drug I got from a Canadian pharmacy.

Certainly America's plan to buy from Canada isn't to give mail order forms to Americans to send up to a Canadian pharmacy to get their presriptions filled, I think we're talking about getting huge orders (like big pallets-full) brought into our country from (or should I say, through) Canada, and then disbursed to our pharmacies for dispensing. It's these drugs that I think they're not certain of the testing or dangerousness of.

But I could be completely wrong, and I plan to find out what the big problem is. I'll decide at that point whether or not I agree.

[Jessica]

Measles and flu may not be apples and apples in terms of the way the vaccines are made and distributed, but I was just trying to make the comparison in terms of both of them being public health issues.

We do get new strains of flu each year. The vaccine development is a new challenge each year. We also know that thousands die of flu each year, and I think we should have a larger stockpile of vaccine ready to go each year even if that means overstock. That is my only real point.

After all, we do seem to have a stockpile of red ties with white flecks :).

[leebee]

I think part of the problem is going to one company for almost half of the flu vaccine the US uses. I think we get most, if not all, from just 2 companies. Knowing the risks for contamination, I would think it would be better to diversify a bit. There hasn't been much of a change in the manufacturing technique ever, and there must be better, safer ways to do it. Also, flu vaccine takes something like 6 mos to culture. We can't go ANYWHERE right now to get anyone to make more for this flu season. We can only see who may have an over supply. If this Canadian company doesn't have an overstock, there won't be any way to make more this season. In the past, there have been huge amounts of unused vaccine tossed, and I know that can be an expensive loss. But the ultimate public health is worth a little belt-tightening, IMO.

[RebeccaT]

I thought the debates last night were very interesting - it was nice to hear plans and talk about issues affecting us here, stateside, and minimal mention of "the war in Iraq." People playing that particular drinking game were probably disappointed. :D

Again, I don't think there was a "winner." If you agree with Bush, you probably think he won, because he did a decent job of making his points and promoting his platform. But I wouldn't say he was winning converts. Same goes for Kerry... if you agree with him and his positions, you were probably encouraged because he did a good job of laying them all out. But I don't think he had any real "zingers" either.

I remain frustrated that NEITHER candidate is saying how they will pay for the programs they are stumping on. Kerry seems to think that rolling back the tax cut on families making $200K+ a year will pay for everything. I don't think it will. I am also concerned that he doesn't seem to think that anything beyond rolling back that tax cut is necessary in order to save Social Security. But I don't think Bush outlined a sound plan for paying for his plans either. He talked about growing the economy, getting more jobs, but didn't say how. He was a little more open-eyed, I thought, about Social Security, but not about other economic issues. And frankly, I do think that Kerry was right that Bush doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to fiscal responsibility (does anyone else find this interesting? That it's the Democrat stumping on a balanced budget and pay as you go?)

Anyway. I said I would decide after the debates. And I have decided. I don't love my choice, but I am afraid of his opponent, and I must vote for someone.

[Grace]

leebee, thanks for your insights. I didn't realize it takes so long to culture, and I didn't know that no more could be produced in time for this season's outbreaks. That's very interesting information, and of course, adds more monkey-wrenches to the situation!

I do think diversifying would be a great idea. And I personally am not so worried about the big loss of overstock of vaccine - I mean, there's already so much waste in our government for truly stupid stuff, that a little waste for the welfare and health of our society seems like a good trade-off. So I do think ordering a good amount more than they think they'll need each year would be a good solution too.

But then we're back to the whole idea that the strain they choose to make the vaccine from may not even be the strain that will go around..... :rolleyes:

[mlr73]

Originally posted by Grace
The problem with getting prescription drugs through Canada is because just because they come from Canada doesn't mean they were manufactured in Canada. Canada gets drugs from India and a whole bunch of other countries where strict controls on how the drugs are produced are practically non-existent. No one is worried in the least about drugs that are actually produced in Canada (which is the case with the Flu vaccine).

Actually, people want to get the same drugs they're taking now - the ones they're buying here in the United States - the ones that just so happen to be less expensive in Canada. They're not different drugs. They're the same as manufactured by Searle or any other drug manufacturer. The manufacturers of drugs that the United States uses aren't only distributing drugs to the United States.

As for the flu vaccine, an estimated 36,000 people a year die from the flu. Even more die each year from pneumonia related to flu. Yes, for the most part these people are those in the high risk catagories. But, to say the flu vaccine is something the average person does not need is not true, in my opinion. Let's say that I, being a healthy person who is not in the risk group does not get the shot. I could conceivably give the flu (even though I may not show the symptoms) to someone with a compromised immune system, which could possibly kill them. Yes, even if a healthy person gets the vaccine, s/he can still give the flu to someone else. But, by having the vaccine you increase the chance that the flu you get will be far less severe than the flu you might get had you not gotten the vaccine. It is like any other vaccine -- it either will prevent you from getting sick or it will (in most cases) lessen the severity of it.

I got the FluMist Nasal-Spray yesterday. That is the live attenuated virus vaccine (contains 3 live flu virus strains which have been weakened). I was in a risk catagory, since my daughter is 6 months old and I'm a stay at home mom. I feel fine today. If I didn't have my daughter, I wouldn't get the vaccine this time, since it is being rationed. But, I have gotten the shot every year for the past 3-4 years. In my opinion, it is a very important thing for everyone to get.

[Grace]

Originally posted by mlr73


In my opinion, it is a very important thing for everyone to get.

Here's where you and I will just have to respectfully agree to disagree. I'm not 100% convinced that any of the vaccines are safe, and there is a growing number of people who won't even vaccinate their kids with the supposed "required" vaccines (measles, etc), for fear of the safety issues.

I don't even take prescription drugs readily. I really have to consider the pros and cons, because so many of the drugs we get aren't tested for so many things, and then they cause a whole set of new problems that didn't exist before (a good example is Vioxx). I am currently on Zelnorm, and man does it work to fix my problems, which were horrible. I'm afraid though that if I have to be on it long-term, what could I be doing to myself? Exchanging one problem for another is not a good solution, IMO, and medicine is never an exact science. I had a hysterectomy last year that was supposed to fix my pains and problems. Well, they fixed one set of problems, but now I'm left with a whole set of new problems that were caused by the surgery. I can't decide which problems are worse.

So I don't believe at all that the Flu vaccine is "a very important thing for everyone to get." When you consider 36,000 deaths out of about 290 million people in this country, that's .0001% of the population. That's one one THOUSANDTH of one percent. Truly infinitessimal, and not the huge health scare the media portrays it as.

[Jessica]

That is 36,000 deaths WITH the vaccine. In 1918, without a vaccine or modern medicine, millions died of flu. Vaccines are the way we prevent outbreaks of communicable diseases.

Parents who do not vaccinate their children against polio, measles or whatever are forgetting that thousands of children died of these diseases until the middle of the last century. Ask my grandmother (well, OK, you cannot now because she died) how she felt when she could get a polio vaccine for her four daughters. That disease terrorized people--my own father had it as a boy and nearly died.

[Grace]

Don't get me wrong, Jessica, although in re-reading my post I guess I did give the impression that I felt that no vaccines were necessary or good. I do believe that vaccines have saved millions of lives, and I'm not saying I'm against them by any means.

But again, those 36,000 deaths are with the vaccine, but how many people actually get the vaccine? I never have, no one in my family ever has, no one in DH's family ever has, etc. It's not like they vaccinate 290 million people, and then only 36,000 die because of it. So my point is each person has to weigh their risk. The risk of getting the flu - are you strong enough to fight it? Are the odds good you might die if you get it? The risk of taking the shot - is it safe? Will it even protect me against the strain that's going around? All the risks need to be weighed.

Mlr73 said she thought it was a very important thing for EVERYONE to get. I disagree with that statement.

[greysangel]

Grace we agree on this one :D I don't think everyone should get it actually. I have had flu once and that was the first winter I was living in NYC. Granted it was horrible and I was out of commission for a good 4-5 days, but I recovered. A lot of people in my office think I'm insane for not getting the vaccine, but I'm in one of the camps that believe we shouldn't be popping a pill for every single discomfort. I like my doctor, but if I went to see him about a head cold, he would perscribe an antibiotic...and he's not alone. I think a majority of folks are killing their body's response to fighting bugs, germs etc. because they run for a perscription the first sign of a sniffle.

[gertdog]

Well, I've learned from all these TV and online "insta-polls" that I am apparently a poor judge of who "won" or "lost" a debate. Last night I thought the polls would say Bush won, but apparently that isn't how they're turning out. Not that I agreed with Bush's statements or opinions, but he did seem to really pour on some of the personality that some voters find appealing. I thought he engaged the audience better and that this would be reflected in the polling. Guess not. I've been wrong on every single debate. :o

As for the flu vaccine- I think that IMO what is most important is that it's available to those who want it, and that isn't going to be possible this year. I can't get the shot until I'm out of my first trimester of pregnancy, and my doctor has told me that it will almost certainly be gone before then. And it's really unnecessary to have the threat of a shortage stress people out so much- no one should be standing in line for hours, sometimes two days in a row, just to try and get the shot. The news this morning said that the "flu hotline" in Syracuse (I'm visiting Ithaca today) went down because there were so many calls- they've told people you can only get a vaccine at the flu clinics by appointment, but no one can get through by phone, so people are showing up and standing around for hours in hopes of getting in. It's ridiculous.

[Jessica]

I agree with you 100 percent about antibiotics, JeAnne. I don't think everyone should get a flu vaccine, but clearly we need to have enough for the elderly, babies, people with asthma, etc. My mom has asthma. I am pregnant and thus have a compromised immune system, plus the flu could hurt my baby. My dad is over 65. None of us have been able to secure vaccines--I have to wait till November anyway, and they may all be gone. A friend had to stand in line for hours with her asthmatic toddler to get him a vaccine. To me, this is a public health problem.

[greysangel]

Originally posted by Jessica
, but clearly we need to have enough for the elderly, babies, people with asthma, etc.

TOTALLY!!

[Natasha]

Originally posted by ClaraB
in fact, some Canadians are becoming concerned that so many drugs are being sold to Americans that there may not be enough of some drugs for Canadians.


Yup. That happened to me earlier this year. The prescription I needed was backlogged for Canadians for months because of exports. It wasn't a fun experience.

Anyway, that's my little sidenote. I'm finding the debate threads interesting and educational -- carry on, please! :)

[honeygirl1971]

Originally posted by Jessica


After all, we do seem to have a stockpile of red ties with white flecks :).

LOL :D

[SandyM]

Originally posted by Natasha
Yup. That happened to me earlier this year. The prescription I needed was backlogged for Canadians for months because of exports. It wasn't a fun experience.


Excuse me? Canadians have to wait for their prescriptions until after ours (and others) are shipped? :confused:

[mlr73]

I'm coming from the standpoint of someone who is married to a scientist who researches the flu virus. So, maybe I'm biased. I don't know. Why bother with medicine at all? Might as well let everything get progressively worse. I'm not going to argue this point any longer. If you think you'll get sick from the flu shot, don't get it. If you think you'll get sick from medicine, don't take it.

[Natasha]

Originally posted by SandyM


Excuse me? Canadians have to wait for their prescriptions until after ours (and others) are shipped? :confused:

I don't know how commonly this happens, and it had never happened to me before, but there was a period of a couple/few months where this was happening (I'm going on what the pharmacists told me). Anyway, all seems good now. Maybe the supply just needed to be increased to match demand. :)

I don't want to hijack the thread, guys -- sorry :o

Natasha

[ClaraB]

Originally posted by mlr73


I got the FluMist Nasal-Spray yesterday. That is the live attenuated virus vaccine (contains 3 live flu virus strains which have been weakened). I was in a risk catagory, since my daughter is 6 months old and I'm a stay at home mom. I feel fine today. If I didn't have my daughter, I wouldn't get the vaccine this time, since it is being rationed. But, I have gotten the shot every year for the past 3-4 years. In my opinion, it is a very important thing for everyone to get. I beg to differ- you are not in a high risk category, according to the CDC, but your daughter is (they recommend children from 6-23 months get the vaccine). Your daughter is still vulnerable to getting the flu from other contacts - your DH, the rest of your family, other children and adults she comes into contact with. I'm just wondering why you got the vaccine for yourself and not for her?

I'm with greysangel and Grace on this one - I don't think the flu shot is necessarily for everyone, but it is important for those in high-risk groups to get them. For most people, the flu isn't lifethreatening, but it is dangerous for people with compromised respiratory or immune systems. These people should get the flu vaccine, as well as those people who are in positions to spread the disease quickly (such as healthcare workers). People have a panic mentality when it comes to the flu, but the fact is that we will likely never see an outbreak like the 1918 flu, because our healthcare system is so much better (we have antivirals and antibiotics, as well as basics like IV fluids). 36,000 deaths is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions who died in 1918-1919, and it's mostly due to other advances in healthcare, not the flu vaccine. What irks me is that most people think the flu vaccine is the only thing that will save them, so they've created this mass hysteria about suddenly needing it, which is likely going to keep those who truly do need it from getting it. And this just fuels the greed of the middlemen who are gouging providers by charging up to $100 for one flu vaccine, when the manufacturer sells it for $8.50 :mad: .

[Grace]

<STANDING AND CHEERING FOR CLARAB!!>

That's exactly what I was trying to say, only you did it 100 times better!! :D

[RunnerKim]

It's my understanding that there is no shortage of the nasal spray. It can only be used for adults under the age of 55 and in good health or something like that. I'm not sure on the details but it's completely seperate from the vaccines given as shots. The ones for children are also different in that the dosage is smaller and they should get 2 shots 4 weeks apart. So the supply availability will vary for children (6-23m) and for the rest of the population (although I seem to recall something about slightly older children also getting the split dosage if they've never been vaccinated for the flu before).

Primary caretakers and family members are not in the high risk group but they are a higher risk than normal group, if that makes any sense.

Kim

[ClaraB]

Originally posted by mlr73
I'm coming from the standpoint of someone who is married to a scientist who researches the flu virus. So, maybe I'm biased. I don't know. Why bother with medicine at all? Might as well let everything get progressively worse. I'm not going to argue this point any longer. If you think you'll get sick from the flu shot, don't get it. If you think you'll get sick from medicine, don't take it. Well, what it is, is a risk-benefit analysis - do the benefits of the flu vaccine (or any other medication) outweigh the risks? It depends very much on the individual, but you have to realize that no vaccine is totally safe for everyone. I don't think anyone here is saying that no one should get the flu vaccine, but to say that everyone should get it is going to the opposite extreme, IMHO. And I'm coming from the standpoint of someone who is an RN, who has to take care of people who get the flu every year. (And yes, I will be getting my flu shot this year, if I can find it for less than $100/dose).

[mlr73]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ClaraB
[B]I beg to differ- you are not in a high risk category, according to the CDC, but your daughter is (they recommend children from 6-23 months get the vaccine). Your daughter is still vulnerable to getting the flu from other contacts - your DH, the rest of your family, other children and adults she comes into contact with. I'm just wondering why you got the vaccine for yourself and not for her?

I never said I didn't get my daughter the vaccine. She got hers on Monday. And, she'll go back in a month to get her booster. I'm not in the group of parents who thinks that vaccines are bad and cause severe problems, such as autism (there is very little scientific evidence that supports such).

And, I differ on that I am not in a high risk catagory. According to the documents I filled out where I got the FluMist, I am. I am an in home caregiver to a person who is in a high risk. And, even though I do have strong beliefs about getting the flu vaccine, I would NOT have gotten it if I wasn't in the catagory. Maybe you are thinking about the risk catagories for the shot, not the FluMist which is a nasal spray. FluMist CANNOT be given to the same high risk group of people. To get the FluMist, you have to be between 5-49, I believe it is. So, it isn't for the infants or for the elderly. I don't even think you can get it if you are immune compromised. I think the FluMist is also being rationed, but I do fit in the catagory of the high risk for that vaccine.

[mlr73]

One last comment, even though I said I was not going to anymore. I NEVER said that the flu is a save all. I don't even think it is the best thing since sliced bread. My point was and still is, the flu vaccine won't stop people from getting the flu. But it will and can curb the severity. And, the flu CAN be life threatening to anyone.

[lorilei]

I don't want to disrespect anyone in a high risk group by insinuating that no one should get a flu shot.

But I AM curious.
With so many people GETTING flu shots, and so much hype surrounding them, has anyone ever done a study to see if the effectiveness of the shots is a placebo effect?

I don't get a flu shot -- and generally don't believe I need one, since I don't get the flu. But it makes me wonder.

[MrsReber]

Kim, you are correct about the 2 doses for children over 2 who haven't had the vaccine before. Last year, there was panic because some children had died from the flu and all the parents freaked out and tried to get flu shots for their kids. My son was under 2 and my daughter was just over 2. The dr. gave my son the first half of the vaccine and they told me that my daughter couldn't get it at all. We were FINE! We were all fine and nobody got sick.

I think that there is a lot of hype about this because it's an election year. Until last year, many people didn't care if they got a flu shot or not. Then the media went nuts and now people are going crazy over getting the shot when nobody thought twice about it 5 years ago. Yes, 36,000 people died. I did some research into the children dying because, as a mother, I was concerned. I learned that they previously NEVER tracked the deaths of children from the flu in the past so any number they came out with seemed astronomical. At least they now have some data to use from last year.

It's just one more thing for them to criticize the President about. Yes, the question did seem to surprise Bush, but I honestly think there are other more pressing issues.

[MISSINDI]

So how 'bout that debate last night ... :D

[leightx]

Originally posted by lorilei

But I AM curious.
With so many people GETTING flu shots, and so much hype surrounding them, has anyone ever done a study to see if the effectiveness of the shots is a placebo effect?


Here are some statistics from last year - it sounds like it was anywhere from 25% - 50% effective (lower than it would be if the vaccine was a perfect match - they put those numbers around 70-90%.

Flu Stats (http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=520639)

[tbb113]

On the subject of the flu shots, am I the only person confused as to why President Bush referred to Chiron as an English company? Chiron is based here in Emeryville, CA. The manufacturing plant is located in England, but it was an American drug company that had the problem with meeting English health requirements. It was shut down by England...the US didn't halt the importation of the drug.


Here is the transcript of the relevant parts

SCHIEFFER: New question, Mr. President, to you.

We are talking about protecting ourselves from the unexpected, but the flu season is suddenly upon us. Flu kills thousands of people every year.

Suddenly we find ourselves with a severe shortage of flu vaccine. How did that happen?

BUSH: Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States citizen, and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country

...

We have a problem with litigation in the United States of America. Vaccine manufacturers are worried about getting sued, and therefore they have backed off from providing this kind of vaccine.

...

But the best thing we can do now, Bob, given the circumstances with the company in England is for those of us who are younger and healthy, don't get a flu shot.

[Vicanddi]

I think we should rename this thread :D

I only saw part of the debates, and while I think Bush did a good job working the crowd, I think Kerry comes off as more polished and a better speaker. I do worry about his actual plans, though, as he mostly criticizes the president's administration and offers generalized solutions.

About the flu shot...I agree that it is not for everyone. In regards to whether it works or not, I have not researched that topic. However, my husband is an asthmatic with allergies and the flu can knock him straight into the ER with an acute attack. He has been getting the shot for the last few years and has luckily avoided this concern as he did not get the flu. He is my only study subject though :)

Dianne

[lorilei]

Originally posted by leightx
Here are some statistics from last year - it sounds like it was anywhere from 25% - 50% effective (lower than it would be if the vaccine was a perfect match - they put those numbers around 70-90%.

Flu Stats (http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=520639)

Thanks for the stats, Leigh.
Interesting stuff. Still wondering about that placebo effect, though. Haven't been able to find any data to support my suspicions, but I am a firm believer in the idea that thinking positively is half the battle :)

[tbb113]

Here is a older study (http://www1.va.gov/resdev/highlights/flupr.htm) on the flu vaccine vs a placebo. And here is another (http://www.flumist.com/professional/aboutflumist/efficacy.asp)

[Jen]

Originally posted by ClaraB
I think what's happening is that the pharmaceutical companies are leaning on the American government to stem the tide of imported drugs, because the US market (which has no price controls, unlike most other countries) is their big meal ticket, and they're afraid of losing any of their profits here. Color me cynical, I know...

This is exactly the situation. I work in the pharmaceutical industry - my job is to write and submit drug applications (both for clinical trials, and for eventual marketing of a drug) to regulatory agencies, including both the FDA and Health Canada. I am intimately familiar with the drug regulations in both countries, and Canada's controls over drugs sold (ALL drugs, not just those intended for Canadian consumption) are at least as good as those in the States. Mark McClellan and others in the FDA have made such a big deal out of Americans reimporting drugs from Canada for purely monetary reasons - we have government price controls that make our drugs cost much less (often 1/4 - 1/3 the price in the States). Pharmaceutical companies in the US are up in arms because they see their profits flying out the window, so they have manufactured a story about Canadian drugs being inferior and people are eating it up (of course, it's easier to sell these days since we "evil" Canadians refused to join the war in Iraq :rolleyes: ...many media outlets in the States have been making subtle and not-so-subtle jabs at us ever since).

This is one of the dirty little secrets of the pharmaceutical industry...in fact, just a few weeks ago a VP at Pfizer admitted that the safety issue is basically made-up (see story here (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/116323.htm)). As the story points out, the only possible danger is from marketers selling drugs that they claim are from Canada, but actually aren't - this is a completely different issue.

[kima]

Thanks for that Jen! it is nice to hear from a knowledgeable person such as yourself!

I just laugh when I hear the story about "possible unsafe drugs from Canada". The song "Blame Canada" always comes to mind.
We have bus loads of American seniors coming up here to get medicine. I know that's not the same as buying them over the internet and the risk about not getting them from a true Canadian source is a real but slight one. I just want our people to continue to get drugs at a reasonable cost.Good on our government for putting people not profits first!:)

[Grace]

I also appreciate that information. Again, I never personally believed that Canadian drugs were somehow inferior. As I said, I'd never for one moment hesitate to take a drug that I got while in Canada. I just had the idea that perhaps the drugs they were planning to sell in bulk to the US were perhaps different or not tested the same way as Canada does the ones they import for their own use. Everything you're giving me here shows that that's not the case.

But I don't think it's fair to portray or generalize that everyone here believes that Canada is "evil", or that the story is made up as retribution for the fact that Canada didn't join the war in Iraq. It's simply not fair.

And really, let's be honest here, Canadian media spends an inordinate amount of time telling all you Canadians how evil we and that awful Bush Administration are down here. It's not like your media tells you the whole truth about us either, or even speaks well about the US most of the time, so I say let's not even go there.

But as I said much earlier in this post, I absolutely want to know the truth about the whole subject, and I appreciate your input and the links you provided on it very much Jen. It does change my opinion to some degree about the things that are being said out there (by both parties). But I will continue to do some more research on the subject as well.

[gertdog]

Originally posted by lorilei

Still wondering about that placebo effect, though. Haven't been able to find any data to support my suspicions, but I am a firm believer in the idea that thinking positively is half the battle :)

You're right, in many cases! There are some illnesses for which placebo-controlled studies are rarely used these days because the placebo effect is so well-documented for those kinds of drugs. Depression is one; analgesics are another. This is not to say that there are no control groups in studies of those drugs; they just come up with other methods of control.

Tyra, I had the same recollection that the British prevented the export of the vaccine because Chiron's manufacturing facility somehow didn't meet standards, and wondered about that while listening to the debate last night.

[Kayaksoup]

Originally posted by Grace
And really, let's be honest here, Canadian media spends an inordinate amount of time telling all you Canadians how evil we and that awful Bush Administration are down here. It's not like your media tells you the whole truth about us either, or even speaks well about the US most of the time, so I say let's not even go there.


Now, I would just like to respond to this. First and foremost, we have very little media here that IS Canadian. Most major sources of news aside from CBC and that godawful Global empire are from the States(CNN,MSNBC,etc).
Generalising that our media protrays the US as evil is ever so slightly ridiculous. What our media does tell us is that some people in the US are up in arms about perscription drugs from Canada, softwood lumber and beef exports. That doesn't mean you all are evil.
And really, the majority of our news, "an inordinate amount of time" is NOT taken up with stories about the US. We like to hear what is going on in the rest of the world too.:)

[Grace]

I didn't say anything about your news ONLY reporting not-so-nice things about the US. Of course you're all interested in news from everywhere. Lots of people are. I give you this article:

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2004/weinreb063004.htm

[Kayaksoup]

Thank you for the article Grace. I haven't heard of the Toronto Free Press, but would assume it is a paper local to that area. I thought it was interesting to read the byline at the bottom.

Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. His work as appeared on Newsmax.com, Men's News Daily, the Drudge Report, Foxnews.com and The Rant. He can be reached at cfp@canadafreepress.com

I know you personally didn't write that article, but I don't like the slant that he chose to take on that. He mentions the slurs against americans that two Canadian politicians made. What he fails to mention is that a lot of Canadians were mortified at the comment. We are smart enough to know that was a major international relations gaffe.

Also, this is based on a poll by Canwest (what I referred to as the godawful Global empire in my post above). The questions that were used are not listed, so I will not pass judgment on the results of that poll, which was a general poll about OUR politics. It wouldn't surprise me that teenagers would respond like that. they are teenagers. Most teenagers I knew hated/scorned anything that didn't fit into their world. you grow out of it.
Now, If you reworded that poll and asked adults, Canadian adults, if they thought Bush was evil, I cannot deny that you would probably get that response. Can't help the fact that we are a bunch of bleeding heart Liberals here... But I think I can safely say that Canadians do not think that American people are evil.

[Kayaksoup]

I just wanted to add that I googled Toronto Free Press and I know why i haven't heard of it /read it before. Its a right-wing news source. I am glad you pointed it out to me Grace, because I find it fascinating to compare two news stories and see how different they are, despite the supposedly unbiased media(noting here that I do know that no media is truly unbiased, left, right or whatever). Reading further articles, I am amazed at how obsessed they are with so-called "anti-americanism". Now, I may have my head in the sand, but I feel that these people are trying to pour gasoline on a candle flame, if you get my gist....

[kima]

All that I would add is that articles such as the one you posted Grace show that free speech and right wing views are very much accepted and part of our society. A recent Macleans magazine (our national magazine-like Time) has an unflattering picture of a Canadian beaver giving advice (unwanted) to his American neighbour. Fair enough.Lots of Canadians agreed with the sentiments expressed there.
No country outside the US had a greater outpouring of sympathy after 9/11 than us- our capital held the largest memorial with over 100,000 people days after the attacks.
With all the respect and admiration in the world I have to say Grace that you don't have an opportunity to see Canadian media except in excerpts. Read the National Post- a hugely popular newspaper with a definite conservative bent. I subscribe and read it every day. We are not bombarded with news designed to make us think Americans are evil. That is just plain wrong. Teenagers are usually pretty reactionary and yes Bush and the war in Iraq are very unpopular up here-young people tend to react with extreme adjectives. That's what teens do!. jmarie you must be fuming at just how much your poor thread has been hijacked.:rolleyes: Sorry!

[Jen]

I echo the sentiments of Kayaksoup and Maureen. I strongly believe that the media we have access to here in Canada presents a pretty fair picture - although they may carry stories about "dislike" of Americans (really, this means dislike of Bush, who is immensely unpopular here), there are lots of positive stories about the States as well.

And honestly, the US media has a very distorted view of Canada, and I stand by my statement that lots of ridiculous and hurtful things were said about Canada after we refused to join the most recent Iraq war (a move supported by the majority of Canadians). Freedom bacon, anyone? :rolleyes:

I still think that one probably gets a more balanced view of US politics in Canada than you do in the US - only because so many of the US news outlets seem to be in bed with one party or another. As Kayaksoup said, there is a lot of influence from other countries on our news. You can also argue that a "balanced view" doesn't exist...what is the truth, anyway? No one really knows. What you do get from watching the media outside the US is what the rest of the world perceives, which should be (and isn't necessarily treated as) an important perspective for Americans to consider.

[Editing to add...] I did find that article to be quite offensive...there were a lot of vast generalizations that bothered me, and the author certainly picked and chose his news sources to his advantage. I do want to point out that our prime minister did make the statement that the arrogance and greed of the West were important factors in the occurrence of 9/11. However, he did NOT say the US...I (and many others) took that comment to be an indictment of the West in general, including Canada and Western Europe. The media jumped on it and made it into an anti-US comment, which I don't think it was.

[HejazSunKat]

Originally posted by kima
Bush and the war in Iraq are very unpopular up here.

Maureen I might also add that the war in Iraq is very unpopular HERE too. The administration had no mandate from anyone, neither the global community nor most American citizens, for starting it. I think that's a common misperception about America - that we all support the policies of whatever administration is in power. 100,000 people protested the Republican convention in New York in August - that's a pretty strong message.

[kima]

I know that the war is unpopular in the States. But obviously there is more support there than other western countries. I think Jen said it best- Canadians don't like Bush (the majority) and we don't support the war (the majority)-those are about politics not real every day Americans.:)

[Vicanddi]

Even if you don't support the war, it is important to support the troops. I think we learned our lesson the first time.

[Grace]

Originally posted by Kayaksoup
But I think I can safely say that Canadians do not think that American people are evil.

Of course not, any more than Jen said in her post that Americans think of those "evil Canadians" passing bad drugs off to us. That is just as ridiculous and was the point of my saying something.

And Maureen, you're right. I don't read Canadian papers or see Canadian TV. Canada doesn't get FoxNews or O'Reilly (as examples), yet I see plenty of people bash that network and specifically Bill all the time.

I think you guys are missing my point. My point is, you perceive our media to be very negative against Canada. I perceive your media to be very negative against the US. Either way, it's all about each other's governments and policies, nothing about any average Canadian person or average American person. THAT was my point, and why I felt offended by the one part of Jen's post that said she thought the lies about Canadian pharmaceuticals was because we like to portray Canada as evil or as some kind of retribution for not going along with the Iraq war. I said it wasn't fair, and pointed to the exact same behavior done by the Canadian media (and just about every other country's media too). So all I said was let's not go there, because it's not fair.

And lastly, I posted the article not because it comes from a right-wing source, but because of the results of the poll that says 40% of Canadian teens think America is evil. Forget about the commentary in the article. Take that with a grain of salt. But where are these teens getting this idea that we're "evil" down here? That is what says to me that they are not getting truthful messages about us.

[MaryH]

Can we get back to Pell grants?

Sorry, but if GW said it one more time I was going to throw something.
:cool:

Jen, it's perhaps more revealing of my cynical nature that what you said is exactly what I thought before this whole topic got started.

For anyone interested, and who believes that the national debt (i.e., how are we paying for programs and tax cuts, etc) is important I recommend reading The Price of Loyalty by Ron Susskind. While some pro-Bush supporters may seem to think Paul O'Neill (former Secretary of the Treasury) is "out to get" GW, it is a fascinating read for anyone who thinks the idea of fiscal responsibility is neither a Democratic nor Republican idea, but simply a good one.

[Kayaksoup]

Originally posted by Grace


And Maureen, you're right. I don't read Canadian papers or see Canadian TV. Canada doesn't get FoxNews or O'Reilly (as examples), yet I see plenty of people bash that network and specifically Bill all the time.

I think you guys are missing my point. My point is, you perceive our media to be very negative against Canada. I perceive your media to be very negative against the US. Either way, it's all about each other's governments and policies, nothing about any average Canadian person or average American person. THAT was my point, and why I felt offended by the one part of Jen's post that said she thought the lies about Canadian pharmaceuticals was because we like to portray Canada as evil or as some kind of retribution for not going along with the Iraq war. I said it wasn't fair, and pointed to the exact same behavior done by the Canadian media (and just about every other country's media too). So all I said was let's not go there, because it's not fair.

Grace, MY issue is that we are submerged in US media here. 80% of the news I watch is from the US. Granted its CNN. I had never HEARD of Bill o'Reilly until I read a response to the article that you posted by him. And any disdain I have for Fox News is that I assumed it was related to the whole Fox network, which routinely carries drivel. i had no idea it was a separate, serious news, entity. But all that aside, as others have pointed out, our exposure to US media is much, much higher than your exposure to the Canadian media.
I understand your concern over the 40% of teens that categorise the US as "evil". Heck, it makes me uncomfortable. But I also responded to the results of that poll with some generalisations of my own. you must have missed the comments myself and others have made...
Teenagers are usually pretty reactionary and yes Bush and the war in Iraq are very unpopular up here-young people tend to react with extreme adjectives. That's what teens do!.
Also, this is based on a poll by Canwest (what I referred to as the godawful Global empire in my post above). The questions that were used are not listed, so I will not pass judgment on the results of that poll, which was a general poll about OUR politics. It wouldn't surprise me that teenagers would respond like that. they are teenagers. Most teenagers I knew hated/scorned anything that didn't fit into their world. you grow out of it
Ok, I promise from this day forward, i will stop hijacking this thread. But i just wanted to add that I suspect more Canadians have caught at least one of the debates then ever watched our own pre-election debates. At least, they are more talked about here than our own were!

[Kayaksoup]

Originally posted by MaryH
Can we get back to Pell grants?



sorry, hijack over.

[Melman]

Ok...let's talk Pell grants.

I thought it was very interesting in the last debate when Bush said, "Let me start with the Pell Grants. In his last litany of misstatements. He said we cut Pell Grants. We‘ve increased Pell Grants by a million students. That‘s a fact."

Kerry responded with, "But you know why the Pell Grants have gone up in their numbers? Because more people qualify for them because they don‘t have money. But they‘re not getting the $5,100 the president promised them. They‘re getting less money. We have more people who qualify. That‘s not what we want."


I haven't see the comments disputed. Is it true that more people qualify for Pell Grants and that's why the numbers have gone up????

[tbb113]

Regarding Pell Grants and the debate (from the Kansas City Star)

PELL GRANTS

• Kerry and Bush went back and forth on whether Bush cut Pell grants, a need-based college scholarship.

Bush promised in 2000 to increase the maximum Pell grant from $3,300 to $5,100 for first-year students. It increased to $4,000 in 2002. He has requested an increase to $4,050 in his 2005 budget.

Bush proposed increasing Pell grants by $33 million in fiscal 2005. But the Department of Education said the program is already underfunded by $2.5 billion in the current academic year, Congressional Quarterly reported in January.

Here is another site (http://healthandenergy.com/bush_rhetoric_versus_reality.htm) that talks about the debate.

And finally, an article (http://www.asu.edu/debate/news/expectations.html) from The State Press ASU's school newspaper.

[HejazSunKat]

Originally posted by kima
But obviously there is more support there than other western countries.

I think you have to make the distinction for support (here) of the war and support of the troops; a very different matter entirely. We are ALL proud of the people who are over there doing their jobs. We are not all so proud or supportive of the administration that got them into this mess. If you were to ask the average American whether they are in favor of the war in Iraq I doubt you'd get many yes's.

[Grace]

If you were to ask the average American whether they are in favor of the war in Iraq I doubt you'd get many yes's.


I think you're wrong, Linda - I think the polls about being in favor of the war still lean towards the yes's (here in the States):

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/14/bush.kerry/

This article shows that support is definitely declining, but it does state that more people still support the war than don't. (And notice this comes from CNN for everyone who thinks that I only look at or read or believe right-wing sites :rolleyes: )

"More people than not believe that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do, but that number has declined to 48 percent in this poll, compared to 53 percent in April."

Even if it is a slim majority that still approves, which is what this article purports, or even if it's changed since this last poll was taken, and now has lost the majority, you still can't discount 45% or 48% or whatever of Americans as if they don't count as "Average Americans". That's still a lot of people - basically half.


And interestingly, the majority of the military are reported to be Bush supporters as well, and in favor of the war. You'd think that if they, the ones who are actually over there, being shot at, support the war, then it must have been a good idea? They see first hand what's happening and the good that's being done. Now there are military that don't support the war, that's of course true, but if the majority (2/3rds) do, can we discount their views and feelings on the subject?

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2849914

[Melman]

I've been waiting on a place to post this link. This looks like the right time and place. I found this link while verifying something on snopes.com. It has to do with all these powerful people (many who actually took us to war) have never stepped foot near any type of battle...and actually appear to have gone out of the way to keep away from it. I was shocked at some of the names on these lists. I was shocked so many of these people are such...well...such Chickenhawks!

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks

[HejazSunKat]

I'll grant you Grace that the above were my thoughts on the matter, not a scholarly study. It concerned me to have non-Americans possibly believing we are all gung-ho to unilaterally invade other countries. I think the protests here in America before the war as well as others since are indicative of less than overwhelming support of George Bush's war. Oddly enough, because of my experience living the region for 6 1/2 years, I happen to believe that a free and democratic Iraq would be a very good thing for the world nor am I sorry Saddam is in jail instead of torturing and killing his own people. That doesn't mean I am in support of how the administration took our country to war, it's justifications for it or how they have been prosecuting the 'peace'. I find it outrageous and unconscionable that our troops were sent to war in the manner they were, with no mandate at home or abroad for the action, and that they continue to be at risk because the administration had no viable plan for nation building in Iraq.

[honeygirl1971]

Linda, that was SO well said!!

My next comment is completely subjective and unscientific, but I live in the same general area as Grace and I don't know a SINGLE person who supports the war, MUCH LESS the way it came about, the way it was carried out, the way it's going now, and so on. My profession tends to be liberal (teaching), and I myself am an unabashed liberal, but still...

That having been said, I of course support our troops and think we've got to do something to make them safer and to end the war (it's obviously not really over) and make Iraq a democratic and safe place for Iraquis. And I also, of course, support the right of everyone here and everywhere to express their views, whether I agree with them or not.

[Jen]

Originally posted by Grace

Of course not, any more than Jen said in her post that Americans think of those "evil Canadians" passing bad drugs off to us. That is just as ridiculous and was the point of my saying something.

Hi Grace, I should apologize for using the word "evil"...it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but it was a bad choice of word considering the way the word has been used elsewhere in this thread (and the other political threads). I could maybe have used "disobedient" or "trouble-makers" or something of that kind. I didn't mean to imply in any way that Americans really think Canadians are evil, or vice versa!

Originally posted by Grace

I felt offended by the one part of Jen's post that said she thought the lies about Canadian pharmaceuticals was because we like to portray Canada as evil or as some kind of retribution for not going along with the Iraq war. I said it wasn't fair, and pointed to the exact same behavior done by the Canadian media (and just about every other country's media too).

And I think you may have misunderstood my comment about the pharmaceutical companies. I didn't say that the lies about our drugs were manufactured to make us look "evil" or as retribution...in fact, I stated that this story was constructed because the pharmaceutical companies are seeing dwindling profits due to people buying drugs in Canada.

Originally posted by Jen
Pharmaceutical companies in the US are up in arms because they see their profits flying out the window, so they have manufactured a story about Canadian drugs being inferior and people are eating it up

However, around the time that this became a big issue for the FDA, the Iraq war was also fresh in peoples' minds, and negative comments about Canada were prevalent in the US media (hence the comment about "freedom bacon"). As a result, many people (not all, of course) were quick to believe the stories about our drugs being inferior without doing their research.

And now, I promise, back to your regularly scheduled thread! :)

[Grace]

Originally posted by honeygirl1971

My next comment is completely subjective and unscientific, but I live in the same general area as Grace and I don't know a SINGLE person who supports the war, MUCH LESS the way it came about, the way it was carried out, the way it's going now, and so on. My profession tends to be liberal (teaching), and I myself am an unabashed liberal, but still...



I live in the Chicago area and know many people who support the war (and I live here, and even though you don't know me personally, I support it! :D ).

I think because many people, particularly those in big cities where the anti-war contingency tends to live in large numbers (or abroad, like you Linda, where just about everyone is anti-war-on-Iraq), are isolated from people who have differing views. And precisely because you don't see them or know them, you start to believe they must not really exist (at least not in large numbers). Go outside of the Chicago metro area (or out of NY or LA, etc.), and you will find most small, rural towns (all around, not just in Illinois) are very, very conservative and supportive of the President and his actions. And if the elections are running really neck and neck like the polls suggest, that says that there are basically an equal number of supporters of Bush as there are of Kerry. An EQUAL number.

I find it funny that the biggest liberals who shout "DIVERSITY!" from the rooftops are themselves fairly sheltered from people whose political beliefs differ from theirs. They might embrace racial diversity, cultural diversity, religious diversity, but darn it if they even KNOW a real conservative! (Not pointing directly at you Honeygirl, even though it seems like I am - but you're not the first person to tell me that, that's all). I am looked at as if I have 3 heads many times (mostly at work), and no one is ever interested in hearing about what or why I believe it. They've already assumed I must be an idiot for liking Bush and look at me incredulously and shake their heads. They don't want to know why I support him, even when I try to offer an explanation.

I personally see things very, very differently from the way you and Linda (HejazSunKat) see them. I do believe Saddam was a threat to us, just by virtue of the fact that he and his regime had a history of not just having WMD's, but of using them (whereas N.Korea, etc. have never used them). I also believe that the UN was the one who failed, not the US, as Saddam had a treaty with the UN that he broke many, many, MANY times over. The UN gave numerous ultimatums, but never enforced anything. It was their job to enforce things and they wouldn't. THEY'RE the paper-tiger in my opinion, and I believe that they weren't so much pacifists in their objection to the war, but actually in kahoots with Saddam (bribes, payoffs, etc.). The proof of that is bubbling around - we already have proof of major-leauge payoffs to the French and the Chinese, and I know the story will just continue to grow. I don't believe our "allies" all of a sudden were against us because they are against war. I don't believe they were ever really our allies (and I mean the big guys like France, Germany and Russia, and I don't include Canada in that lump, just for the record). They were allies of Saddam because of his bribes and lucrative contracts and they wanted to protect their cash cow above all. In addition to the payoffs (mostly done in barrels of oil that could be sold to anyone, anywhere for millions), they had enormous building contracts with Saddam that they knew they'd never be paid on if Saddam was removed (and that has come to pass). So no wonder they didn't support us or demand anything of Saddam!

And it was agreed upon by absolutely everyone - President Clinton, President Putin, MI5 (the British CIA, basically), the Egyptian president (I forget his name), and on and on that Saddam had WMDs. Well there aren't any. But then why did EVERYONE think there were? It wasn't as if Bush was alone in that belief. Everyone's intelligence said he had them, not just ours. Everyone was telling Bush that Saddam was a threat. And of course if Saddam had had WMD's, had given them to terrorists and we had had another awful 9/11 type event, and people were given the same facts - (eg., Clinton said he had them, MI5 said he had them, Putin said he had them, etc.), and Bush hadn't done a thing, well, we all know what the screaming and yelling would have been about then. It's so easy to judge when you can do so in hindsight. Hard decisions are hard precisely because there is great risk no matter what decision you make - if the outcomes were obvious and guaranteed, they'd be easy decisions. You have to believe that they do the best they can at the time, with the information given them, and I believe Bush and his whole administration made decisions with good intent. Intentions to me are everything.

I will grant that perhaps the plan for putting Iraq back together after Saddam's removal wasn't a very good one, but I still think those things can be worked out and fixed. Those aren't hopeless cases. Could things have been better planned? Probably. Does that mean it's an utter failure? Of course not (in my mind). So I still support Bush's actions there, I support whatever we need to do to make life really good for the Iraqi people, who I think deserve to have a great society - we can help them rebuild just like we did Europe after WWII - if it weren't for us, Europe would not be what it is now - and to me it's the same thing. And I'm willing to do what's necessary and not give up on those people there, and not run away just because the going gets tough. And I'm willing to pay my tax dollars to continue to help them (meaning rebuilding - infrastructure, education, medical care, etc). I'd honestly rather pay my tax dollars for that than for many of the useless welfare programs we've got going on in this country that are in too many cases taken and used by perfectly able bodied people who just don't want to take responsibilities for themselves. I want to see those poor, poor Iraqi people who have had NO opportunity (unlike here) take charge of their own country. I was THRILLED to see elections going on in Afghanistan (which the news barely covered :rolleyes: ), and the long lines of people waiting to vote, yet they all had HUGE smiles on their faces! I know the joys my own family has experienced here in this country after having lived through communism and Nazism in Europe. Even though I myself didn't live through any of that, I could see the joyful faces of my own family members and the joy and gratitude they felt when they could vote, buy a house, speak their minds without fear of being hauled away (which happened to my grandfather) on the faces of those Afghani people standing in line. The Iraqis are far more worthy of my tax dollars than some guy here who has opportunities out the yang but just won't take them. (Sorry for the rant!! :D ) OK - back to the subject...

But those are all things that we'll probably always have to agree to disagree on. I doubt I'd ever change your minds, nor is there much of anything you could say that could make me change mine. And I'm not writing all this to be argumentative. I'm just stating what someone who actually supports Bush believes, so you can understand what some of those you say you don't know or have never met are thinking. Take it or leave it. Agree or disagree. I don't want to debate the merits of the war here AT ALL! :D

But I am bothered by the fact that my views actually represent the majority of the country (at least they did until very, very recently), and there are many on the other side who don't believe it or want to acknowledge it. I feel many times like I am written off as some fringe element, not as a sane, normal, average American. (Not accusing either of you of that, just saying that as an "in general" comment, but your comments only serve to cement that belief that I already hold).

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentive or even to debate. I'm not looking for a response to my post, or for anyone to tell me they think I'm right. Linda posted her feelings about Bush and how the war was handled, and why she disagrees with it, and I just posted my own thoughts on the subject, and again, take it or leave it.

But I believe what I just wrote with all my heart and I am not some nutball war-mongerer or blind ideologue. Bush is not my favorite guy. I don't think he's perfect by any stretch. But he most represents my beliefs about the World, moreso than his running mate (by a lot), and I believe wholeheartedly in the cause he is heading.

[beckms]

Originally posted by Grace


I find it funny that the biggest liberals who shout "DIVERSITY!" from the rooftops are themselves fairly sheltered from people whose political beliefs differ from theirs. They might embrace racial diversity, cultural diversity, religious diversity, but darn it if they even KNOW a real conservative!

This Self-proclaimed liberal, anti-Bush, anti-war, tree-huggin' peace-lovin' hippie in Boston ABSOLUTELY agrees with the above very well-written statement!

I've found that as I move further and further from college graduation (2000), I realize what an idealized little bubble most college kids (definitely including myself) live in. They have the very best of intentions, but generally not the real-world experience to back it up. I think this especially when I listen to my brother talk (May 2004 college-grad). It wasn't until recently that I actually had the revelation that Republican does NOT equal bad.

Grace, I only see one head when I look at you, and it sits very squarely on your shoulders. I don't agree with most of your stances, but I always respect what you say and how you say it. If the Republicans knew what was good for them, they'd hire you right this second as their PR person and campaign manager.

[mlr73]

Grace -

As per your logic regarding little concerns for the potential threat of the influenza virus: "And honestly, I don't know of a single person who ever died of the flu." So, basically you're saying that if you don't personally know anyone threatened, it isn't worth your concern??

And per your logic regarding the support for the Iraq war: "I think because many people, particularly those in big cities where the anti-war contingency tends to live in large numbers (or abroad, like you Linda, where just about everyone is anti-war-on-Iraq), are isolated from people who have differing views. And precisely because you don't see them or know them, you start to believe they must not really exist (at least not in large numbers)."

So, are you concerned about Saddam's WMDs because you know someone who died from them or are you applying a different set of standards?

[Grace]

Originally posted by mlr73
Grace -

As per your logic regarding little concerns for the potential threat of the influenza virus: "And honestly, I don't know of a single person who ever died of the flu." So, basically you're saying that if you don't personally know anyone threatened, it isn't worth your concern??



Certainly not. I think I said quite pointedly that I agree that there should absolutely be enough vaccine for everyone who really needs it even if it means having too much that it gets wasted, did I not?? Who said anything about it not being worth my concern??? I only suggested that it shouldn't be hyped to the point of hysteria like it is since the real statistical risk of getting it and even moreso, dying from it, is much lower than is made out to be.

Originally posted by mlr73

And per your logic regarding the support for the Iraq war: "I think because many people, particularly those in big cities where the anti-war contingency tends to live in large numbers (or abroad, like you Linda, where just about everyone is anti-war-on-Iraq), are isolated from people who have differing views. And precisely because you don't see them or know them, you start to believe they must not really exist (at least not in large numbers)."

So, are you concerned about Saddam's WMDs because you know someone who died from them or are you applying a different set of standards?

The actual number of people who died at Saddam's hands are HUGE compared to the Flu (and I mean modern times flu, not 1918 flu), if that's the comparison you're making, and really, it's a ridiculous comparison because one is a natural disease, not inflicted on anyone purposefully. I mean to compare Saddam's purposeful EVIL killings of MILLIONS of people is so completely different from a natural disease - the FLU - that I can't even believe you chose to compare them. But if you think it's the same thing, then I won't argue with you. I'll give up and say you win.

[Grace]

Originally posted by beckms


This Self-proclaimed liberal, anti-Bush, anti-war, tree-huggin' peace-lovin' hippie in Boston ABSOLUTELY agrees with the above very well-written statement!

I've found that as I move further and further from college graduation (2000), I realize what an idealized little bubble most college kids (definitely including myself) live in. They have the very best of intentions, but generally not the real-world experience to back it up. I think this especially when I listen to my brother talk (May 2004 college-grad). It wasn't until recently that I actually had the revelation that Republican does NOT equal bad.

Grace, I only see one head when I look at you, and it sits very squarely on your shoulders. I don't agree with most of your stances, but I always respect what you say and how you say it. If the Republicans knew what was good for them, they'd hire you right this second as their PR person and campaign manager.

:o :o :) Wow. :o That was one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me. Thank you so much. :o

And thank you too for your validation of my feelings and opinions. I can't tell you how much it means to me and how good and refreshing it feels to have someone at least see and listen openly to my viewpoint. I am not bothered by those that don't share it in the least. I only wish more people wouldn't act so threatened by my views as you're plainly not. Thanks again.... XO

[kima]

I totally agree with Rebecca Grace! You are incredibly articulate and your views well thought out. I know and believe that you see my "defense' of the Canadian media is only my attempt to show both sides of an issue.
:)

[HejazSunKat]

Originally posted by Grace
I think because many people, particularly those in big cities where the anti-war contingency tends to live in large numbers (or abroad, like you Linda, where just about everyone is anti-war-on-Iraq), are isolated from people who have differing views. And precisely because you don't see them or know them, you start to believe they must not really exist (at least not in large numbers).

I find it funny that the biggest liberals who shout "DIVERSITY!" from the rooftops are themselves fairly sheltered from people whose political beliefs differ from theirs. They might embrace racial diversity, cultural diversity, religious diversity, but darn it if they even KNOW a real conservative!

Let me see if I understand the inference here: Anyone who is not a supporter of George Bush and his administration and policies must live an isolated and sheltered life with minimal exposure to people of differing backgrounds and beliefs. That must be the explanation for why they have come to a conclusion about Bush so radically different from your own.

Please don't think you have me all figured out Grace because you don't any more than I know you or have you all figured out. You come to your beliefs from your life experiences the same as I do. I'll be 45 years old on Friday. I'm not a wide eyed, idealistic college kid. I had 3 jobs out on the Saudi economy during my time over there and was exposed to people of diverse nationalities and religions. I have been fortunate enough to travel to 17 countries in the last 6 1/2 years so, no, I do not consider myself to have consorted solely with people of beliefs similar to my own. Do you want to know one of the big reasons why I was ready to give up a huge tax break to come home? Because I could no longer take the psychic toll of having to listen to all of the anti-American bullsh!t we had to listen to in the press and from all of the non-Americans we lived and worked with - many of whom had never even been to the US. I got sick of trying to defend and explain my country to people who, sadly, had no conception of what civil rights or a working democracy were all about because they had no basis for it in their own countries of birth. What western societies enjoy is inconceivable to many people on this planet. Far from absorbing their attitudes and becoming ashamed of my country it reaffirmed my belief that I am blessed beyond measure to be an American.

I agree, there is no point in you and I continuing to argue the merits and demerits of the Bush administration. You and I have come to diametrically opposed conclusions about the man and his presidency and we are not going to convince each other of anything. You want him to continue as leader of the free world for another 4 years after November 2nd and I want him back home in Crawford clearing brush because I think he is dangerous for our country - which I love and appreciate as much as you do. Please take a look at Jessica's new tag line. It reflects my feelings so well. I want our country to stand for something positive again and I believe George Bush has only made us stand for something negative.

[honeygirl1971]

Linda, again, well said. For the record, I actually know a fair number of conservatives (including family members), but they do not support the war. Some of them still support Bush, but they are unhappy with the situation in Iraq and how it is being handled. In any case, I never claimed that there weren't any people who supported it! I never claimed conservatives don't exist! And I think my multiple disclaimers made that rather clear to anyone who read them. I do not believe that everyone in small towns is very, very conservative either--that seems like a rather gross generalization.

Grace, I do not think you have 3 heads. And, like I said in my post, I wholeheartedly support your right to express your opinions here and elsewhere. But, I do not agree with the views you express in your long post and there are way too many things to respond to--I just don't have that kind of time. But I am shocked that you feel that countries such as France "were never really our allies." Wow. That statement seems to ignore a very long history between the two countries, as well as the complex reasons countries such as France might not wholeheartedly support our actions in the Middle East. I think it's way, way, WAY too simple to say that they didn't support the war because they were bribed by Saddam. I think you are way too smart to think that's all there is to it!

[Grace]

Originally posted by HejazSunKat


Let me see if I understand the inference here: Anyone who is not a supporter of George Bush and his administration and policies must live an isolated and sheltered life with minimal exposure to people of differing backgrounds and beliefs. That must be the explanation for why they have come to a conclusion about Bush so radically different from your own.



Goodness gracious. No need to get all defensive. I never said anything remotely like what you posted above. I didn't say that your reasons for not liking Bush were because you weren't exposed to other people with different viewpoints. Never once said that anywhere.

I only said that perhaps the reason you feel that there are very few supporters of the war (your own words, including your italics), was because you weren't around very many people who do. I didn't say it was your REASON for coming to your conclusions about the war. Just to say that your perception that there are few supporters is not accurate. That's all. Geez.

And I never, ever, ever once insinuated that I had you all figured out. In fact, my post was not about describing what I think you believe, but the bulk of it was spent explaining what I believe (which is different from what you believe), and why. I'm not sure why there is such an angry tone to your post. My post was in no way meant to debate the issue with you, tell you I think you're wrong, put you down, or any other such thing. It was to put out my own ideas and nothing more, for those that say they don't think there are many war supporters. Period.

I already said I don't want to debate the issue of the war in Iraq. I already know that we disagree and I can respect your position completely. But it seems to me that everyone knows the reasons for not supporting the war, and very few know or understand the reasons for actual support of the war. So I threw my own thoughts out there.

I am 41 years old and have had more jobs than I can put down on paper. I am in sales (and have been for 15 years), in the city of Chicago, where it is a melting pot of every kind of people and culture and I too have travelled the world. So I'm not sure I know what your point of telling me all about your own personal information was. Again, I go back to the fact that I never claimed you were "sheltered" and that's why you came up with your beliefs. I only said that you tend to live in communities of people who have the same beliefs as you, and therefore it may seem to you that there are very few people left who think otherwise, not that it's WHY you believe what you do. I don't think of you as some kind of lemming that just thinks what everyone else does - that's ridiculous. It's exactly your concern about people thinking that everyone in the US is all gung-ho on the war, and you didn't want the world to think that was true. My concern is that you think there's barely anyone left who supports the war, and I didn't want people to think that was true. I really think you misunderstood my post completely. I never knocked your beliefs or stated that you were misguided or wrote off your beliefs as coming from some "sheltered" perspective. So I do apologize if that's the way you took my comments.


I don't know what else to tell you other than I appreciate hearing your viewpoint and I respect your views and opinions even though they are so opposite of mine and I only hope for the same respect in return.

[Grace]

Originally posted by honeygirl1971
Linda, again, well said. For the record, I actually know a fair number of conservatives (including family members), but they do not support the war. Some of them still support Bush, but they are unhappy with the situation in Iraq and how it is being handled. In any case, I never claimed that there weren't any people who supported it! I never claimed conservatives don't exist! And I think my multiple disclaimers made that rather clear to anyone who read them. I do not believe that everyone in small towns is very, very conservative either--that seems like a rather gross generalization.



You did say you didn't know a SINGLE person who supports the war. That's what you said. I'm telling you I know many. And I am among them. By saying that you don't know a SINGLE person who supports the war, says to me you don't think there could be very many who do. I'm telling you that most of them live outside of the big cities. I didn't say that EVERYONE in small towns are very, very conservative, but that most small towns run far more conservative and most big cities run far more liberal. That's a fact, whether you like to believe it or not.

Here's a link to the electoral college map:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct16.html

The big Democratic states are mostly the ones with the biggest cities, NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. The rest of "small town America" tends toward Bush (with exceptions, of course - I don't talk in absolutes!), so I still say that outside of the big cities you'll find much bigger concentrations of Bush and war supporters.

Anyway, I wasn't looking to debate the merits of the war, so I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your post. It would be a waste of each other's time. I do believe what I wrote, and your passive aggressive comment about me being "too smart" (the insinuation there is your belief is the smart one, and if I believe what I do about France then my belief is a dumb one) to believe what I do is an insult. But I'll assume that you didn't mean it that way and not be bothered by it.

[Grace]

Originally posted by kima
I totally agree with Rebecca Grace! You are incredibly articulate and your views well thought out. I know and believe that you see my "defense' of the Canadian media is only my attempt to show both sides of an issue.
:) ]

Oh Maureen, you are the BEST of the BEST at being open and respectful and kind. And you know how much I love you for it. I said in an earlier post that intent for me is everything. And I always know your intent whenever you post anything. I never take anything from you the wrong way, ever, nor do I ever get offended or bent out of shape from it. And I hope you won't ever take me the wrong way either. Because to offend you by being insulting or mean-spirited is the last thing I would ever want to do. Our friendship means more to me than what I believe on any stupid issue. :D XO

[gertdog]

Originally posted by Grace

I find it funny that the biggest liberals who shout "DIVERSITY!" from the rooftops are themselves fairly sheltered from people whose political beliefs differ from theirs. They might embrace racial diversity, cultural diversity, religious diversity, but darn it if they even KNOW a real conservative! (Not pointing directly at you Honeygirl, even though it seems like I am - but you're not the first person to tell me that, that's all). I am looked at as if I have 3 heads many times (mostly at work), and no one is ever interested in hearing about what or why I believe it. They've already assumed I must be an idiot for liking Bush and look at me incredulously and shake their heads. They don't want to know why I support him, even when I try to offer an explanation.


Grace, in this statement you point out that people make assumptions about you based on your support of Bush, but in the same paragraph you make a sweeping generalization about liberals that goes beyond who supports or does not support the war. I believe this is what Linda was responding to in her post. Your point that we should remember that this country is pretty evenly divided politically (i.e. supporting Bush (or Kerry) is not a "fringe" thing) is a really important one. I think it's important to take that point even further. The half of the population that supports Bush is not homogeneous in their beliefs or backgrounds; nor are the people who support Kerry or call themselves liberals. Making any assumptions otherwise serves no one's cause.

[honeygirl1971]

Originally posted by Grace


your passive aggressive comment about me being "too smart" (the insinuation there is your belief is the smart one, and if I believe what I do about France then my belief is a dumb one) to believe what I do is an insult. But I'll assume that you didn't mean it that way and not be bothered by it.

For what it's worth, I actually meant it as a compliment to you. I meant that you seem interested in providing well-thought out reasons for your opinions, and so I had a hard time believing that you really held what seemed to me to be oversimplified and reductionist beliefs about France. But you're obviously bothered or you wouldn't have responded in the tone, and words, you did.

[Grace]

Originally posted by gertdog


Grace, in this statement you point out that people make assumptions about you based on your support of Bush (as well you should), but in the same paragraph you make a sweeping generalization about liberals that goes beyond who supports or does not support the war. I believe this is what Linda was responding to in her post. Your point that we should remember that this country is pretty evenly divided politically (i.e. supporting Bush (or Kerry) is not a "fringe" thing) is a really important one. I think it's important to take that point even further. The half of the population that supports Bush is not homogeneous in their beliefs or backgrounds; nor are the people who support Kerry or call themselves liberals. Making any assumptions otherwise serves no one's cause.

I agree wholeheartedly with your point and it's well taken. I'm not sure though how I made a broad generalization about liberals, my point was to describe precisely how I personally am treated by the liberals that I meet, not to make a statement about every single liberal in existence (although that may be how my statement was worded, so sorry about that). But for a few exceptions (people like Maureen come to mind), I get poo-pooed by just about every liberal I have ever met. They either change the subject abruptly, roll their eyes, get a look of disdain on their faces, shake their heads in disbelief, or go off on an anti-Bush rant to try and show me how much of an idiot I am. Almost no one (again, with the exception of Maureen) has ever even been willing to listen to my viewpoint.

So sorry if I sounded like I made too broad of generalizations about liberals. You're absolutely correct that being a liberal doesn't mean one thing any more than our other discussion on another thread about being white or hispanic or whatever automatically means one thing either.

[Kayaksoup]

Originally posted by Grace

But for a few exceptions (people like Maureen come to mind), I get poo-pooed by just about every liberal I have ever met. They either change the subject abruptly, roll their eyes, get a look of disdain on their faces, shake their heads in disbelief, or go off on an anti-Bush rant to try and show me how much of an idiot I am. Almost no one (again, with the exception of Maureen) has ever even been willing to listen to my viewpoint.

Grace, I think that you may be confusing a desire to debate issues with disdain. I personally enjoy debating with you and I am sorry if you take that personally. I know that you have strong convictions, mine are just as strong and I feel its only fair to share both sides.
Just because you haven't changed my mind doesn't mean I think you are an idiot. I hope I have been nothing but respectful and if I have stooped to name calling, please accept my apology.

[Grace]

Originally posted by honeygirl1971


For what it's worth, I actually meant it as a compliment to you. I meant that you seem interested in providing well-thought out reasons for your opinions, and so I had a hard time believing that you really held what seemed to me to be oversimplified and reductionist beliefs about France. But you're obviously bothered or you wouldn't have responded in the tone, and words, you did.

It was still a put-down thinly veiled as a compliment. But I'll take your word that it wasn't your intent.

In any case, you're right, I don't think the ONLY reason France isn't our ally is because they took bribes, etc. There is a new book out called:
"Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France" by Mark Molesky & John J. Miller

Here is a synopsis of the book:

In a provocative and well-researched assessment, John J. Miller and Mark Molesky debunk the myth of friendship between France and America and chronicle the rivalries and betrayals that have marked relations between the two countries over the course of history. Returning to America’s earliest history, the authors relate the little-known story of the Deerfield Massacre of 1704, when a group of French and Indians massacred settlers in northern Massachusetts. They show that the French came to America’s aid only at the end of the Revolution and then with the interest of harming the British; and during the Civil War, they supported the Confederacy. In the 20th Century, French demands at the Versailles Peace Conference paved the way for the rise of fascism in Germany and eventually required America to rescue France during World War II. The postwar period was also rife with disastrous actions, including Charles de Gaulle’s decision to pull out of NATO and his obstruction of American efforts to turn back Soviet expansion. French imperialism also left troubling legacies in Vietnam, Cambodia and even Syria and Iraq as well.

These are reasons, in addition to the bribes they took from Saddam, that I don't believe they were ever our allies.

And I will say for the last time, I'm not looking to debate anyone. I'm not looking to convince anyone I'm "right". I believe what I believe for a reason and will vote accordingly, and I know everyone else will too. And that's a good thing. Happy voting! :D

[honeygirl1971]

Originally posted by Grace


And I will say for the last time, I'm not looking to debate anyone.

THAT seems rather insincere, but whatever.

Maybe we should change that South Park song to "Blame FRANCE!" Just because a couple of ultra conservatives manage to get a book published doesn't mean that it represents history, or the country they are scapegoating, accurately or fairly.

[Grace]

Originally posted by Kayaksoup

Grace, I think that you may be confusing a desire to debate issues with disdain. I personally enjoy debating with you and I am sorry if you take that personally. I know that you have strong convictions, mine are just as strong and I feel its only fair to share both sides.
Just because you haven't changed my mind doesn't mean I think you are an idiot. I hope I have been nothing but respectful and if I have stooped to name calling, please accept my apology.

Wow, you didn't owe me any apology at all, but I thank you so much for saying it anyway. I should have further clarified that I don't count this board really when I talk about debating. People here for the most part DO listen and treat each other respectfully. I meant people I meet IRL, or face-to-face. I absolutely agree that it's fair to share both sides. And I really don't expect to change your mind, just as you won't change mine. But I have no complaints whatever with really anyone in particular here. No one has resorted to name-calling or nastiness. So I won't accept your apology ( ;) ) only because you don't owe me one! :D

I enjoy debating everyone here too, and really, because of how I'm treated IRL, it's the ONLY place I get to debate! And because I like to debate (not sure why??! :o :rolleyes: ), I may come across as someone who's argumentative. Really, I'm not (or at least I don't want to be! :D ).

What's funny (ha ha funny) here is that we can't see each other's eye rolling or looks of disdain (if there are any, which I'm sure there are!), and people can't cut me off midsentence here! I get to say my entire peace uninterrupted! :D :D Thanks everyone for indulging me in that regard!

[Grace]

Originally posted by honeygirl1971

Maybe we should change that South Park song to "Blame FRANCE!" Just because a couple of ultra conservatives manage to get a book published doesn't mean that it represents history, or the country they are scapegoating, accurately or fairly.

SEE!! This is what I mean!! Any kind of thoughts that go against what you believe automatically get put off as inaccurate, unfair, and just some lies by a "couple of ultra conservatives"! I can see your disdain and eye rolling (and then there's that rant to point out how stupid I am for believing this that I was talking about too). Thanks for proving my point for me.

You could have disproved the book by countering the facts presented. Instead you chose to label it "ultra-conservative" and automatically decide that it must be inaccurate and unfair. Gotta love it.

[HejazSunKat]

Originally posted by Grace
I'm not sure I know what your point of telling me all about your own personal information was.

I only said that you tend to live in communities of people who have the same beliefs as you, and therefore it may seem to you that there are very few people left who think otherwise, not that it's WHY you believe what you do.

The point of my telling you my personal information was to demonstrate that I have not spent my time sitting here in my ivory tower in evil, liberal, Godless Boston consorting only with people who affirm my beliefs. As for the second section of your post that again infers that you think you've got people like me all figured out.

Originally posted by Grace
I'm not sure though how I made a broad generalization about liberals

See below:

Originally posted by Grace
I think because many people, particularly those in big cities where the anti-war contingency tends to live in large numbers (or abroad, like you Linda, where just about everyone is anti-war-on-Iraq), are isolated from people who have differing views. And precisely because you don't see them or know them, you start to believe they must not really exist (at least not in large numbers).

I find it funny that the biggest liberals who shout "DIVERSITY!" from the rooftops are themselves fairly sheltered from people whose political beliefs differ from theirs. They might embrace racial diversity, cultural diversity, religious diversity, but darn it if they even KNOW a real conservative!

[honeygirl1971]

and to provide just a little balance to Grace's synopsis of the above-mentioned book, here is an excerpt from the Publisher's Weekly review cited on Amazon.com. I think it's always a good idea to cite your sources.

From Publishers Weekly
National Review reporter Miller (The Unmaking of Americans) and Harvard lecturer Molesky focus quite single-mindedly on destroying what they say is the "myth" of the historical friendship between the United States and France. In doing so, they give short shrift to a few vital facts: for instance, while focusing on the French and Indian massacre of British colonists at Deerfield, Mass., in 1704, they overlook the importance of the French fleet in George Washington's great victory at Yorktown. Miller and Molesky also dismiss French policy as having a cynical underside of national self-interest, willfully overlooking the fact that all governments act out of self-interest. Thus, they call French trade barriers during the Cold War ingratitude for American aid in WWII. They accuse the French, who dare to look down on American culture, of their own "sordid cultural exports," such as the avant-garde, with its strain of nihilism. And, as the authors see it, the French, with the debacle at Dien Bien Phu, are responsible for America's quagmire in Vietnam. As one might guess, driving this revisionism is France's refusal to support the United States in its late invasion of Iraq The authors' ire, and their carefully selected and unnuanced slices of history, will convince only the already converted.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

[Grace]

Originally posted by HejazSunKat


The point of my telling you my personal information was to demonstrate that I have not spent my time sitting here in my ivory tower in evil, liberal, Godless Boston consorting only with people who affirm my beliefs. As for the second section of your post that is where I inferred that you thought you know me or anything about me or my life.



Why are you feeling so attacked by me, Linda? I never said you lived in any ivory tower, I never said you or Boston were EVIL, or GODLESS! Gosh, those are some really strong words I never, ever used or even insinuated. I'm sorry you are reading so much into my posts. I tried to clarify that my point of saying I thought you were isolated was meant only to imply that it might be why you are feeling that there are very few out there who support the war. AGAIN, not to imply how I believe you have ARRIVED at your beliefs. I said very clearly that I never once thought of you as some lemming who just believes what everyone else around you believes. I just think that since you live in a liberal area, it might seem to you that there aren't many people that still support the war. And I'm saying there are - the majority of them just don't happen live in Boston or Saudi Arabia (or even Chicago, for that matter).

Again, I apologize if you think that I was trying to say you are somehow EVIL or have never heard any other perspective or whatever. It most definitely was not. I doubt I'm going to convince you of that though.

[honeygirl1971]

Originally posted by Grace


You could have disproved the book by countering the facts presented. Instead you chose to label it "ultra-conservative" and automatically decide that it must be inaccurate and unfair. Gotta love it.

Well, in fact I think I did do that if you read my longer post. I was putting it together when you wrote the above comment. And I do find the National Review to be a very conservative publication, so that is why I labeled Miller as such. The claims you cited from the book were so preposterous I thought they would speak for themselves, but just in case I posted the book review excerpt as well.

I'm not sure what rant you were referring to. I am not particularly known for rants, which are quite tedious, and so if I have been "ranting" here I apologize to anyone I have offended or bored.

[gertdog]

Originally posted by Kayaksoup

Grace, I think that you may be confusing a desire to debate issues with disdain. I personally enjoy debating with you and I am sorry if you take that personally. I know that you have strong convictions, mine are just as strong and I feel its only fair to share both sides.
Just because you haven't changed my mind doesn't mean I think you are an idiot. I hope I have been nothing but respectful and if I have stooped to name calling, please accept my apology.

Linda, your post reflects my feelings as well, so I will ditto it instead of trying to say it in my own words. :o I love to talk politics in real life, but I have a harder time on the boards because it's so hard to convey tone and respect in this medium, while balancing that with a clear expression of my own opinion.

Grace, I appreciate your response to my post. I was interpreting your statement as one about liberals in general, rather than one specific to certain people that you know. I think it's sad that there are people out there who aren't even interested in having a conversation that allows you to explore differences of opinion and the reasons for them. That attitude does everyone a disservice.

[Grace]

sorry, double post.

[Grace]

Originally posted by honeygirl1971


Well, in fact I think I did do that if you read my longer post. I was putting it together when you wrote the above comment. And I do find the National Review to be a very conservative publication, so that is why I labeled Miller as such. The claims you cited from the book were so preposterous I thought they would speak for themselves, but just in case I posted the book review excerpt as well.



I'm offended by your insinuation that just because the book is written by "ultra-conservatives" that it therefore cannot be true or accurate in any way. I don't mind the label, but the insinuation attached to it. This is a prime example of what I mean when I tell people I support Bush or that I'm a conservative - I get written off instantaneously as a nutball. You've already determined just by virtue of the fact that the book was written by people who are self-proclaimed conservatives that it's all a bunch of nonsense and rubbish. How fair is that?? Talk about open-mindedness.

And your review did nothing to say that the facts presented in the book were untrue, only that they didn't like their perspective or perception of the events. But that's not the same thing as saying what they've written is untrue. The claims aren't perposterous. The actual events they state did happen. How you perceive the motives of those events is where the differences lay (lie? Maureen? HELP! :D ).

[honeygirl1971]

Originally posted by Grace


I'm offended by your insinuation that just because the book is written by "ultra-conservatives" that it therefore cannot be true or accurate in any way. I don't mind the label, but the insinuation attached to it.

And your review did nothing to say that the facts presented in the book were untrue, only that they didn't like their perspective or perception of the events. But that's not the same thing as saying what they've written is untrue. The claims aren't perposterous. The actual events they state did happen. How you perceive the motives of those events is where the differences lay (lie? Maureen? HELP! :D ).

What I ACTUALLY said was that just because the book was published doesn't mean that it is accurate or fair. I personally believe that for a historian and a journalist to purposefully omit relevant facts is tantamount to lying, but I did not claim that the book wasn't true in *any* way. I do find the claim that the French are responsible for our own mistakes in Vietnam preposterous. But that's just my opinion. Some conservative writers (such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter) talk ad nauseaum about personal and national responsibility, and yet also engage in this kind of scapegoating when it is convenient, and I find that quite hypocritical. Again, this is just my own opinion.

It's obvious to me that this book wasn't written for real historians, but for conservatives who hate France. That's why it was published by Doubleday and not by an academic press. I'm sure it's great reading for anyone who is looking for a scapegoat and hates the French, but as history it is highly dubious and misleading IN MY OPINION.

[Grace]

Well you believe that the academic press has no slant, which I don't believe, so we'll have to agree to disagree again. Our history books are being rewritten all the time to exclude all kinds of stuff academia doesn't want our kids to know about.

And you did "ACTUALLY" say "Just because a couple of ultra conservatives manage to get a book published", not "just because the book was published", so you can try to backpedal on that one, but I doubt you'll ever admit that you DO have an automatic dismissiveness and disdain for people who are "ultra-conservative".

So you go ahead and keep reading only those books that reinforce your own beliefs and I'll do the same. ;) :D

[kima]

It is "lie" in that case. You "lay" something down.
All I can say is we sure have some very bright and articulate people here on the BB- of all political stripes! Not only can you people cook you are very well read and informed. I am sad when it gets personal but I really enjoy the good points made by all.

Since this thread is weaving all over the map I would like to say one more thing on the media and how it portrays our countries.
I think the reason Canadians might feel we get a bad rap in your news is because we really notice when there is the slighest mention of Canada. We get so many US news sources and believe me Canada is rarely mentioned so our ears perk up when it is. Since good things rarely make the news in any country the news about Canada is usually something negative-ie. you don't hear- nothing hapened in Canada today!:D
So to us it does seem like Americans don't know much about us other than we didn't support the war and we have cheap but suspect drugs.
We shouldn't care but we do. :rolleyes:
In fact you would think that with all the American influence up here-news, culture-everything -that we would be spilt along the same lines as you are. Somehow we have managed for good or bad to remain unique and different. The subtle difference in government policies and culture have somehow survived which makes me happy as I want to be a separate and unique country. It is not easy and sometimes we do react defensively and and in an extreme way (well as much as we docile Canucks are capable of).Vive le difference!

[Grace]

I wasn't asking for backup on my views from you Maureen - only a grammar lesson! (you tried to teach me the lay/lie thing once, and I just can't seem to remember the rule for that one!).

And Maureen, I absolutely 110% agree with what you just wrote!!!! I agree that it's precisely because they don't spend any time on the news reporting any good thing about anyone, anywhere, that when they do say something about Canada, it'll be some kind of negative.

And I also love that you guys ARE different in your subtle ways. I mentioned that very fact on another thread about how I love to travel Europe because I want to immerse myself in a culture that is different from my own. I really do NOT want a "one World". But that's just me.

I want Canada to be a separate and unique country too. And Canadians love Canada (meaning the way it's run), and if they don't they can change it if they want to all by themselves. VIVE LE DIFERENCE is right, Maureen!!

[honeygirl1971]

Originally posted by Grace
Well you believe that the academic press has no slant, which I don't believe, so we'll have to agree to disagree again.
So you go ahead and keep reading only those books that reinforce your own beliefs and I'll do the same. ;) :D

Well, there you go with the generalizations about me again. I don't see how you can claim to know what I read. I certainly don't claim to know what you read, I only stated my opinion about who the book was written FOR. And I did not say that the academic presses have no slant, but it is true that books for an academic press have to be peer-reviewed and that historical sources have to be carefully documented. That is just a fact, and as someone who has worked for and with academic presses, I know this is true. Sometimes books published for a general audience by non-academic presses are not held to these same standards. That's all I meant by the comment about academic and non-academic presses.

I think and hope I have finally made myself clear. I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree about France and the French, since obviously we have very different opinions on this matter, and we both feel that these opinions are well-supported. However, I would prefer you don't make claims or generalizations about me personally.

[Grace]

Originally posted by honeygirl1971


It's obvious to me that this book wasn't written for real historians, but for conservatives who hate France.

And here we go with the insults again. Conservatives aren't REAL historians :rolleyes: .

I refer back to something Gertdog wrote in an earlier post:

but in the same paragraph you make a sweeping generalization about liberals that goes beyond who supports or does not support the war. Your point that we should remember that this country is pretty evenly divided politically (i.e. supporting Bush (or Kerry) is not a "fringe" thing) is a really important one. I think it's important to take that point even further. The half of the population that supports Bush is not homogeneous in their beliefs or backgrounds; nor are the people who support Kerry or call themselves liberals. Making any assumptions otherwise serves no one's cause.

So your assumption that the book is only for those French-hating, non-historian conservatives is ridiculous, and is just another gross generalization that serves no one's cause.

[Grace]

You're the one who brought up the academic press and held it up as the gold standard, not me. You're right, I don't know what you read, but again, it was you that insinuated that the only books that get to have any credence are those that are published by the academic press.

And my last sentence about you reading what reinforces your beliefs and I'll do the same was meant tongue in cheek, if that wasn't obvious? :confused:

I accused MYSELF of doing the same thing, did I not??

[honeygirl1971]

Grace, I really feel you are trying to misunderstand what I am saying. I am sure that conservative historians would be equally offended by A BOOK, ANY BOOK, that claims to be history and yet willfully omits relevant facts. I think that the book was written for non-historians who happen to be conservative and also happen to hate France. I think there are many conservatives, many non-historians, and maybe even many France-haters who would not be impressed by such a work.

[honeygirl1971]

Originally posted by Grace
You're the one who brought up the academic press and held it up as the gold standard, not me. You're right, I don't know what you read, but again, it was you that insinuated that the only books that get to have any credence are those that are published by the academic press.

And my last sentence about you reading what reinforces your beliefs and I'll do the same was meant tongue in cheek, if that wasn't obvious? :confused:

I accused MYSELF of doing the same thing, did I not??

I believe I addressed the point about the academic press in my previous post. The fact that you put a smiley next to the generalization about me really didn't change the fact that it was still a generalization. The fact that you accused yourself of doing something that you also accused me of doing also did not change the fact that you were accusing me of something I found offensive.

[Grace]

I see what you're saying now. But not sure that it makes me all of a sudden agree. You haven't READ the book. The fact that one reviewer who obviously doesn't like the book, and has chosen some words about "omitting relevant facts" to describe the book, doesn't make that true either.

I leave it to each person to read it and make up their own mind about what's true (perspective-wise) and what's not, and how relevant the supposed "omitted facts" are or are not to the overall premise of the book. For you to determine based on one person's, one-paragraph review, and your own bias that it was written from a sinister slant that it is unimpressive and inaccurate is not very fair.

[Grace]

Originally posted by honeygirl1971


I believe I addressed the point about the academic press in my previous post. The fact that you put a smiley next to the generalization about me really didn't change the fact that it was still a generalization. The fact that you accused yourself of doing something that you also accused me of doing also did not change the fact that you were accusing me of something I found offensive.

But I don't REALLY accuse myself of doing that, so therefore I meant it that I don't REALLY accuse you of it either. I guess the term "tongue-in-cheek" was lost on you. And I had a WINK in there, not just a smiley face, just to make sure you took it as a tongue in cheek comment.

And as far as the academic press goes, just because it's peer reviewed doesn't mean that it automatically becomes the only believable or true stuff.

[honeygirl1971]

Originally posted by Grace


But I don't REALLY accuse myself of doing that, so therefore I meant it that I don't REALLY accuse you of it either. I guess the term "tongue-in-cheek" was lost on you.

And as far as the academic press goes, just because it's peer reviewed doesn't mean that it automatically becomes the only believable or true stuff.

The meaning of the term was not lost on me. Why you thought this was appropriate or funny WAS lost on me. The increasingly rude tone of your posts is not lost on me.

I do think that requiring sources to be fully documented and requiring books (and articles) to be peer-reviewed HELPS improve the accuracy of published books and articles. It is of course not foolproof.

[kima]

Originally posted by Grace
I wasn't asking for backup on my views from you Maureen - only a grammar lesson! (you tried to teach me the lay/lie thing once, and I just can't seem to remember the rule for that one!).



I quickly edited my post as I misread it the first time!
:D
I know you don't need me to defend you Grace-you hold your own around here just fine!:D :D

[Grace]

Originally posted by honeygirl1971


The increasingly rude tone of your posts is not lost on me.



Sorry you think I'm being rude. I don't see that at all, but I have no intention to be rude to anyone.

And I thought injecting some humor might lighten things up a little, apparently I was wrong. And I see we don't share the same sense of humor either, so I won't bother with that again.

Editing to add, Hey Maureen - I've got that Joan Lunden cookbook for you!! (fondly remembering one of the best belly laughs I've ever had! :D :D )

[bobmark226]

Originally posted by Grace
Sorry you think I'm being rude. I don't see that at all, but I have no intention to be rude to anyone.
Previously posted by Grace
I guess the term "tongue-in-cheek" was lost on you.

Now, define "rude."

Bob

[Grace]

Let me go get my "World According to Grace" dictionary.... be right back....

[honeygirl1971]

LOL, thanks Bob. ;)