# What's so wrong with Kerry?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-wrong-with-kerry/238629
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [April 6, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-wrong-with-kerry/238629 "2004-04-06T21:20:46Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 7
### Author:  [@The\_Scrivener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Scrivener)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2004, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-wrong-with-kerry/238629/121 "2004-04-11T00:28:13Z")
The thread hijack continues:
Scene 18, cast commentary: the cast refers to David Gale feeling “‘spiritually bereft’” and being apologetic and conflicted over what he’d be doing to Barbara in that scene, and that Gale’s wife “‘split on him,’” walking out and “not going home that night” after the screening.
Scene 18, director’s commentary: Stuart Gordon says that she turned to him and said, “‘David, how _could_ you?’ and stood up, and walked out of the theater…”.
Not _quite_ the verification I’m looking for, but I’m patient… maybe further elaboration is elsewhere in the commentary tracks, or maybe I read it on IMDB or something.
BTW, one of the most recent “user’s comments” on that site’s **Re-Animator** page also notes the Gale/Kerry similarity.
At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone writes this up for a campaign “color” feature on how some movie afficionados have been noticing (with some snickering) over Kerry’s being a dead-ringer for a, ahem, dead leerer – if only because we’re still a long, long way from Election Day, and this could prove to be an interesting (if very irrelevant, and irreverent) human-interest angle.
---
### Author:  [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2004, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-wrong-with-kerry/238629/122 "2004-04-12T22:20:18Z")
> [@blowero](#):
>
> First of all, personal insults are against the rules here. Second, the fact that you failed to explain what you were talking about does not make _me_ dense.
This from the poster who informed another to “lay off the crack” in this discussion? Sheesh, it **IS** all about the density of lead, that’s what makes it so useful.
> [@blowero](#):
>
> Did you have to remove the lead? Are you now being exposed to gamma radiation? I don’t understand your complaint. Should OSHA just drop the regulations against lead? You really don’t seem to have a coherent argument. I would think that the solution would be not to have LESS regulation, but for the agencies to communicate with each other.
Yes, our site is removing lead. However, the forgien sites aren’t. And I’m always being exposed to gamma radiation at work, it’s just that lead attenuates it. I want OSHA to realize that there are applications for lead and grant exemptions in their 5 year plan to reduce lead. [http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show\_document?p\_table=NEWS\_RELEASES&p\_id=166](http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=166)
While Tungsten is often more effective at shielding, it’s much more difficult to find and not nearly as easy to work with as lead. With Stainless Steel in vogue, everyone wants to use that as well, but it’s not nearly ass effective. Bismuth-lead and Uranium really don’t get us anywhere, either. And it’s not like we can go down to Radio Shack and find a gamma spectrometer that doesn’t incorporate lead to replace our existing one.
I’d like less regulation telling companies every little thing they need to do and let them focus on what best keeps their employees safe. The first thing I see every morning is the electronic marque noting the date and how many days since our last “lost time accident”.
> [@blowero](#):
>
> Do we _really_ need new kinds of eyeliner? We don’t have enough kinds already?
Do we really need more than one style of clothing? One type of food? C’mon, yes some people desire new forms of eye liner, they buy it and industries put out new ones each year.
> [@blowero](#):
>
> I already said that I only object to UNNECESSARY testing, not necessary testing.
Like I said that’s subjective. Helium and hydrogen are heavy when you deal with electrons and quarks all the time, but they’re near non-existant if you spend your time dealing with enzymes. Who decides what is unnecessary? Surely no company would conduct testing they consider unnecessary.
> [@blowero](#):
>
> That’s a red herring, isn’t it? You already conceded that you’re merely talking about a difference of whether foreign companies beat you to the money. You failed to provide any examples where people are _denied_ beneficial drugs due to being stymied by animal-rights regulations. It’s pretty disingenuous to keep bringing it up.
I never said it had happened. That’s your strawman. I’m just afraid it **will** happen.
---
### Author:  [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)
#### Post date: [April 13, 2004, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-wrong-with-kerry/238629/123 "2004-04-13T08:27:30Z")
Kidchameleon, you’ve been warned about the personal insults. Just a little friendly advice - you ought to lay off the subject now.
> [@](#):
>
> Do we really need more than one style of clothing? One type of food?
I asked if we need _more_ kinds of eyeliner, not if we need _one_ kind. What’s up with you changing the argument? If we had to torture animals to get a new clothing style, then we can do without that particular style.
> [@](#):
>
> C’mon, yes some people desire new forms of eye liner, they buy it and industries put out new ones each year.
I didn’t ask if people _desire_ it; I asked if we _need_ it.
> [@](#):
>
> -
>
> ## Originally Posted by blowero I already said that I only object to UNNECESSARY testing, not necessary testing.\*
>
> Like I said that’s subjective.
That does not change what I said.
> [@](#):
>
> Helium and hydrogen are heavy when you deal with electrons and quarks all the time, but they’re near non-existant if you spend your time dealing with enzymes.
??? Non-sequitur.
> [@](#):
>
> Surely no company would conduct testing they consider unnecessary.
That is by no means a surety.
> [@](#):
>
> -
>
> ## Quote: Originally Posted by blowero That’s a red herring, isn’t it? You already conceded that you’re merely talking about a difference of whether foreign companies beat you to the money. You failed to provide any examples where people are denied beneficial drugs due to being stymied by animal-rights regulations. It’s pretty disingenuous to keep bringing it up. \*
>
> I never said it had happened. That’s your strawman. I’m just afraid it **will** happen.
Well now you’re just outright lying. I said it’s disingenuous to keep bringing it up. And in fact, you DID bring it up. I didn’t claim you “said it had happened”; I said you brought it up, which you did. Here’s exactly what you said:
> [@](#):
>
> Should we not make the drug? Would you be upset if your loved one went to the doctor and you heard “Well, we’d like to scan her for cancer, but this drug could destroy some of her organs. Would you prefer exploritory surgery?” Wow, what a wonderful choice.
That is most certainly not _my_ strawman. Those are YOUR words, quoted _exactly_ from your post. Please don’t tell lies; it just makes you look bad.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-wrong-with-kerry/238629.md?page=6)