Decision 2008

[Bflobill 1125]

:001_smileThe primary season is over we have our candidates. For me the choice is clear OBAMA 2008! I believe he is the most exciting candidate on the American scene since JFK. What ever your preference I think we can all agree its going to be an interesting summer and fall.

[Shane]

(Prays the Rosary for this thread)

[Robxcarlson]

Obama wasn't my first choice, but I'll be more than happy to vote for him.

[TimmyBoston]

(Prays the Rosary for this thread)

Big +1

[thevelvet]

Obama or anarchy.

[1969Fatboy]

Thank god David Duke isnt running!

[bluesbro1982]

Anybody want to run an over/under on when the thread gets locked?

[MarSellus Wallace]

Who on earth is Obama?

[scoopster]

I didn't think "the Clintonator" was out of the race yet. Denver! Denver! Denver!

More delegates? Only a flesh wound!

[DunEdinRanger]

I'm not impressed with any of the candidates. Senator Obama is an outstanding speaker with a prepared speech in front of him, but in interviews and one on one question and answer, he is not impressive.

I think I will vote Kodos, or Kang.

[soapbox]

(Prays the Rosary for this thread)

Very glad you got first post with that one. +e.

Jesse

[bb557]

:001_smileThe primary season is over we have our candidates. For me the choice is clear OBAMA 2008! I believe he is the most exciting candidate on the American scene since JFK. What ever your preference I think we can all agree its going to be an interesting summer and fall.

There's an election?:w00t:

[ouch]

For me the choice is clear OBAMA 2008! I believe he is the most exciting candidate on the American scene since JFK.

He's an empty suit.

[oldschool77]

To vote or not to vote, that is the question. I fancy Liberty so Obama and his "Mama" State can't help me there and McCain just doesn't do it for me either so I guess then it's up to Kermit the Frog:biggrin:!! Have fun with this thread!!

[iron maiden]

He's an empty suit.

a big +1 on that!

....and a little too openly communistic for my tastes...remember, birds of a feather....

[BMWRider]

Chuck Baldwin in 2008. :lol::lol::lol:

I cannot vote for the two main candidates.

[jazzman]

He's an empty suit.

Yeah, but Hillary's a quitter.:biggrin:

[vcardona]

A huge +1 on that.

[micah1_8]

This year's election reminds me of a very special episode of South Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd)...


I have yet to vote in an election in which I was even remotely glad to get to vote for either candidate. The best ideas I've heard yet were from a couple of morning radio idiots announcing that they were running to be co-presidents... Even though they were just joking and it was obviously a publicity stunt, I'd vote for a candidate that espoused some of their ideas.

[scoopster]

I just saw a funny reference for McCain: "McSame".

And the prayers must be working. This thread is staying wonderfully civil. Who says politics and shaving don't mix.... :lol:

[ouch]

Yeah, but Hillary's a quitter.:biggrin:

:lol:

Gotta give BO credit for knocking off Shrillary. I would have lost a lot of money had I bet on that a year ago.

[King of Kailua]

This thread is crying out for a voting poll.

[77DX]

(Prays the Rosary for this thread)

I think a novena may be the only hope for this thread.

Bob Barr (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/) is the only hope for this country. Whosis and whatsis are more of the same.

[analog_kid]

A lot of you don't know this, but I can see the future! Goes likes this:


Matt walks into voting booth on November 4th.
Matt looks at ballot options.
Matt stabs himself in the eye with sharp stick.

The end.

[JBHoren]

A lot of you don't know this, but I can see the future! Goes likes this:


Matt walks into voting booth on November 4th.
Matt looks at ballot options.
Matt stabs himself in the eye with sharp stick.


See the future? Not after stabbing yourself in the eye!!
Obviously, you live in a state which has not-yet embraced computerized voting machines.

[kongjie]

Silly peoples don't realize Cthulhu is, always has been and always will be president.

[castlecraver]

He's an empty suit.

Obama : Empty Suit :: McCain : ______

a) High-water slacks
b) Aqua green Leisure Suit
c) Nursing home gown
d) Full pair of Depends
e) all of the above

:lol:

(just keepin' it light-hearted, folks. Y'all know where I stand.)

[sullivanpm]

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g49/patshansull1213/banner.jpg

[kongjie]

How did my response end up preceding your bumper sticker??

[sullivanpm]

Magic :biggrin:

[endcycle]

To those of you calling obama an empty suit - go read his policies. He actually declares them pretty openly and details them very well on his site, at LEAST as well as McCain and certainly in more detail than Clinton.

There are better reasons to dislike him - his politics are very much to the left of center, so if you lean to the right, you'll find many good reasons by reading his platform. There's substance there, and a lot of it - but it's substance that you'll likely dislike. :)

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ <-- there's a LOT there. Have fun reading. Dismissing him as an empty suit just shows that you're uninformed.


MOVING ALONG
I have a feeling the McCain campaign is a bit disappointed in this result. It would have been a lot easier to take out Hillary in the general election - just say the name "clinton" on the Rush Limbaugh show, and you've got 55 million people screaming to vote against her. :)

Personally, I'm a libertarian, so I doubt very strongly I would vote for either candidate at this point, but I will say that I'm disappointed in McCain. I was thrilled with him up until this last year and a half - I even voted for him in the 2000 primaries. He really seems to have changed and "sold his soul" - though how much of that was just an act to get through the primaries, I don't know. I think that AT THIS POINT, between the two, Obama's the better choice overall.

[soapbox]

MOVING ALONG
I have a feeling the McCain campaign is a bit disappointed in this result. It would have been a lot easier to take out Hillary in the general election - just say the name "clinton" on the Rush Limbaugh show, and you've got 55 million people screaming to vote against her. :)

Yes, quite.


I will say that I'm disappointed in McCain. I was thrilled with him up until this last year and a half - I even voted for him in the 2000 primaries. He really seems to have changed and "sold his soul" - though how much of that was just an act to get through the primaries, I don't know. I think that AT THIS POINT, between the two, Obama's the better choice overall.

Neither "Mavericks" nor "Moderates" can make it through the primary process. You see a higher turnout of dogmatists and issue-voters during primary season, so the candidates must appeal to the extremists (making all sorts of sound bites that provide his/her opponent with ammunition) AND THEN race back to the center for the general election.

McCain has been shoring up his radical-right and Christian-right propers for the last couple of years, because it worked for Bush 43. McCain doesn't belong to a fundamentalist church so he has to get endorsements from fundamentalist pastors, and he has to speak at gender-segregated universities like Bob Jones, to assure the Republican majority that he's been Saved at least twice and believes in a God-given right to home ownership of multibarrel anti-aircraft weaponry.

The McCain who worked with Feingold on campaign finance reform has been absent until now. But I bet you'll see that more until November. McCain needs to appeal to the moderates or else he can't win the election.

My $0.02. And I won't appeal to my credentials as a Political Science PhD as evidence that I'm correct, because I don't study American Politics--that's my wife's field of study... :smile:

Jesse

[kwk285]

I am a defensive voter. In my opinion anybody that wants to be president is not qualified.

I will be voting for McCain because I feel that he will screw up less than Obama.

Neither candidate is qualified to be the dog catcher in my town.

[Bowcephalus]

In my tea I prefer lemon. In my government, gridlock.

[soapbox]

In my tea I prefer lemon. In my government, gridlock.

So did your Founding Fathers.

[sullivanpm]

In my tea I prefer lemon. In my government, gridlock.
amen brother
That way at least they aren't screwing us.

[endcycle]

I am a defensive voter. In my opinion anybody that wants to be president is not qualified.

I will be voting for McCain because I feel that he will screw up less than Obama.

Neither candidate is qualified to be the dog catcher in my town.



The alternative corollary by my dad is this: Anyone smart enough to do a good job in a political office is also smart enough to stay the hell out of politics.

Obama seems to be an exceptionally smart guy though, which DOES make me wonder just wtf he's doing in politics instead of the private sector.

[Bowcephalus]

which DOES make me wonder just wtf he's doing in politics instead of the private sector.
Funny, that......

[homebrewer]

I don't care if they're dead, I'm voting for George Patton and his running mate Charlton Heston....:biggrin:

Seriously though, I don't really like either of them particularly. At least Clinton is gone though. As bad as the current two are, she was the most evil of the three as far as I'm concerned....

[john.crissman]

I will cast my vote tonight for a 12oz bottle of amber beer. Perhaps two, then an early bedtime.

[jfever311]

He's an empty suit.

Great big +1 What real political accomplishments has Obama made in his career? Anything?!? Negative!!!!

Too bad Romney dropped out. He would have had my vote.

So when is Rush going to fun for president?:001_smile

[ouch]

To those of you calling obama an empty suit - go read his policies. He actually declares them pretty openly and details them very well on his site, at LEAST as well as McCain and certainly in more detail than Clinton.

There are better reasons to dislike him - his politics are very much to the left of center, so if you lean to the right, you'll find many good reasons by reading his platform. There's substance there, and a lot of it - but it's substance that you'll likely dislike. :)

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ <-- there's a LOT there. Have fun reading. Dismissing him as an empty suit just shows that you're uninformed.



I'd just like to mention that I think he's an empty suit.

[scoopster]

I'd just like to mention that I think he's an empty suit.
Listen Sweetie: No one calls me an empty suit!

[cl00bie]

The McCain who worked with Feingold on campaign finance reform has been absent until now. But I bet you'll see that more until November. McCain needs to appeal to the moderates or else he can't win the election.

Jesse, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I think he needs to shore up his support with actual conservatives so they actually take the time to vote. The moderates already love him, and the women who feel betrayed by the Democrats are taking a second look at him.

[soapbox]

Jesse, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I think he needs to shore up his support with actual conservatives so they actually take the time to vote. The moderates already love him, and the women who feel betrayed by the Democrats are taking a second look at him.

Certainly rational people can disagree about McCain's election strategy. I acknowledge your point, and its validity. I don't think the moderates are much in love with Obama (whose position is pretty far left for American politics), but I think the moderates are also wary of "four more years." This far out, it's tough to make predictions.

The election may boil down to turnout -- so that raises the profile of certain state-level ballot items. Georgians turned out in droves to reject the state amendment establishing legal status for gay partnerships, and that got Sonny Perdue elected governor, just because he is a Republican. The same can happen in other states, and similar items might tip the balance towards McCain if introduced in the swing states.

Jesse

[Mejnoon]

This year's election reminds me of a very special episode of South Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd)...


I have yet to vote in an election in which I was even remotely glad to get to vote for either candidate. The best ideas I've heard yet were from a couple of morning radio idiots announcing that they were running to be co-presidents... Even though they were just joking and it was obviously a publicity stunt, I'd vote for a candidate that espoused some of their ideas.

:biggrin::biggrin:

Ain't that the truth. With that said, I honestly don't think this is gonna be a very competitive race. Obama is gonna run away with it.

[john.crissman]

I will cast my vote tonight for a 12oz bottle of amber beer. Perhaps two, then an early bedtime.

I did. Then I came downstairs and saw the wife watching Larry King discussing the whole thing. The second one was just as nice as the first.

I'm John Cr. & I approve this message.

[sol92258]

He's an empty suit.

+ pipi

[texcattlerancher]

He's an empty suit.

With 143 days experience in the Senate.

[jfever311]

I am still waiting for one you Obama supporters to fill me in on all his accomplishments. Any takers?

[_JP_]

I am still waiting for one you Obama supporters to fill me in on all his accomplishments. Any takers?

He came outta nowhere and beat Hillary.

[Mr. Clean]

With 143 days experience in the Senate.

Exactly 143 days more experience than what currently occupies the Oval Office .... Ooops did I just argue with my own point. :biggrin:

And what accomplishments did he have even at the end of his first term, yet he was re-elected. Go figure.

I continue to be disappointed that while we pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves for being the greatest nation in the world, we can't seem to bring anything more than medicore candidates for our top governmental executive position.

[jfever311]

He came outta nowhere and beat Hillary.


That was not an accomplishment, that was a necessity.

It seems to me that he has gotten this far by using his stage presence. That, I will say, he has in abundance. He is a remarkable orator.

But then again, so was Hitler.

[scoopster]

I share concerns about his lack of experience and potential to steer way, way left of but I gotta agree that was a pretty darned impressive accomplichment to beat the Clinton machine. Good strategy and management.

[tim8557]

A lot of you don't know this, but I can see the future! Goes likes this:


Matt walks into voting booth on November 4th.
Matt looks at ballot options.
Matt stabs himself in the eye with sharp stick.

The end.

And no doubt the stick wouldn't be sharp enough and you'd have a "Dangling Chad-Lid" . This would create havoc; demands for recounts and another trip to the Supreme Court as the world laughs.

Don't do it!

[tim8557]

It seems to me that he has gotten this far by using his stage presence. That, I will say, he has in abundance. He is a remarkable orator.




But so was Reagan and during his tenure, most Americans felt proud and optimistic about this country. I'm not so sure that's the case today.

[ouch]

So who had #53 in the Godwin's Law pool?

[castlecraver]

He is a remarkable orator.

But then again, so was Hitler.

:thumbup:

Godwin-ed on page 3. Superb.

:mad2:

[momo360]

Scary times - keep those prayers coming.

[soapbox]

So who had #53 in the Godwin's Law pool?

I had #19, damn my luck. I figured it would erupt into a flame war immediately despite my efforts to steer towards the analytical rather than emotional.

Jesse

[jazzman]

So who had #53 in the Godwin's Law pool?

Lincoln, Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Bush II are other leaders who had objectively inadequate experience, but were able to communicate with the public in ways that brought them popularity. Buchanan, Carter, Bush I, TR, and FDR had outstanding resumes. There are bums, idiots, failures, and heroes in each group (you can probably guess how I'd categorize them). My point is that experience isn't everything.

Everyone can see how smart and educated Obama is, so go to his website and decide whether you agree with enough of his positions to vote for him. According to all opinion polls, most Americans agree with him on most of the important issues and disagree with McCain. If McCain wins, it will be for reasons other than policy positions. Leadership abilities? Age? Singing voice? The reason we don't discuss in polite company?

[sullivanpm]

Lincoln, Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Bush II are other leaders who had objectively inadequate experience, but were able to communicate with the public in ways that brought them popularity. Buchanan, Carter, Bush I, TR, and FDR had outstanding resumes. There are bums, idiots, failures, and heroes in each group (you can probably guess how I'd categorize them). My point is that experience isn't everything.

Everyone can see how smart and educated Obama is, so go to his website and decide whether you agree with enough of his positions to vote for him. According to all opinion polls, most Americans agree with him on most of the important issues and disagree with McCain. If McCain wins, it will be for reasons other than policy positions. Leadership abilities? Age? Singing voice? The reason we don't discuss in polite company?

Do tell
Do tell.

[Dr. Mike]

Lincoln, Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Bush II are other leaders who had objectively inadequate experience, but were able to communicate with the public in ways that brought them popularity. Buchanan, Carter, Bush I, TR, and FDR had outstanding resumes. There are bums, idiots, failures, and heroes in each group (you can probably guess how I'd categorize them). My point is that experience isn't everything.

Everyone can see how smart and educated Obama is, so go to his website and decide whether you agree with enough of his positions to vote for him. According to all opinion polls, most Americans agree with him on most of the important issues and disagree with McCain. If McCain wins, it will be for reasons other than policy positions. Leadership abilities? Age? Singing voice? The reason we don't discuss in polite company?

Lincoln had at least completed 1 term in Congress. Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Bush II all had executive experience as governors. I would call Lincoln an anomaly in terms of the ratio of his experience going into office and his success in office. Typically that doesn't happen, obviously ignoring early presidents.

Personally, I prefer some executive experience in my chief executive, so I'm not thrilled at all in a choice between 2 senators. I'm also not thrilled about either candidate. My vote will more than likely be against Obama, more than anything else. Either way, though, I see my taxes going up. With McCain, at least it will only be on some idiotic cap-and-trade boondoggle. Both are going to screw us on illegal immigration. Both are going to strap us with more undue burdens over environmentalism.

My vote will be for the late, great Johnny Ramone. Honestly, at times I think a dead man might govern better than a lot of the living.

[SlyGI]

He's an empty suit.

+1

[the beav]

a big +1 on that!

....and a little too openly communistic for my tastes...remember, birds of a feather....

Agreed, and not only that, but he has one of the most elitist "strategists" as his foreign policy advisor; that is, Zbigniew Brzezinski as in "I also worked for Jimmy Carter and created the Trilateral Commission in my spare time".

[Bowcephalus]

Carter II...The similarities of circumstance are striking.......This is gonna be a fuuuuuuun ride!.....No better entertainment than incompetence in the government....And no greater lesson to it's sucklings.....

[kwk285]

I have seen a couple of posts that say we should read what a candidate's postions are or to listen to their speeches.

I have never understood that. A politician will say what ever he/she needs to say to accomplish their objective of getting their butts elected.

I don't care what a candidate says, I look for past actions. Both parties have scraped the bottoms of their barrels in selecting their candidate.

The only reason I follow this and vote is that fact that I believe that if you don't take the time to vote, you have no right to complain or have an opinion.

[Bowcephalus]

View them through the skeptical eyes of a virgin........

[BMWRider]

Funny thing is I always thought Democrats would have lined up to vote for McCain. I have heard quite a few claim he was a Republican they could vote for. Now that push comes to shove, they are backing down fast. I guess that was a load of manure. This is a sad, sad election.

[sol92258]

I share concerns about his lack of experience and potential to steer way, way left of but I gotta agree that was a pretty darned impressive accomplichment to beat the Clinton machine. Good strategy and management.

...however, none of that was outright his doing...

[Duggo]

That was not an accomplishment, that was a necessity.

It seems to me that he has gotten this far by using his stage presence. That, I will say, he has in abundance. He is a remarkable orator.

But then again, so was Hitler.

I wouldn't compare Obama to Hitler, and I wouldn't use that as an example to show extremes; as we may have people of many different kinds of faith.

[jfever311]

I wouldn't compare Obama to Hitler, and I wouldn't use that as an example to show extremes; as we may have people of many different kinds of faith.


You are correct, sir. You would not make such a comparison, or use said comparison to demonstrate certain extremes. I, however, did, and would glady and rightly do again.

[Bowcephalus]

Now now, it was a rhetorical statement illustrating that character aside, people can be misled by those with a talent for speechmaking......Context my friend, context.....

[voerman]

Funny thing is I always thought Democrats would have lined up to vote for McCain. I have heard quite a few claim he was a Republican they could vote for. Now that push comes to shove, they are backing down fast. I guess that was a load of manure. This is a sad, sad election.

Right - now that he is getting in bed with the religious right, promising to appoint more reactionaries to the supreme court, defending the idiotic war to the death, opposing basic health care, being wishy-washy on warantless wiretapping and generally doing everything he can to shed his so called moderate label - everyone should vote for him. Well McBush hasn't earned my vote yet.

Lou

[MTgrayling]

Only one candidate gives me hope that we can get this country back on track. That ain't the old, old, old guy.

[TstebinsB]

I don't necessarily like Obama but voting for him can't be worse than those of you who voted for G. Dubya for the second go-around. How's that working out for ya? I don't mention this because I'm trying to defend a Democrat. I'm saying it because most of the participants in these political threads have been conservative voters, most likely being Republicans. That being said, voting for Bush in 2004 takes away all your credibility to discuss this election.

[BMWRider]

Right - now that he is getting in bed with the religious right, promising to appoint more reactionaries to the supreme court, defending the idiotic war to the death, opposing basic health care, being wishy-washy on warantless wiretapping and generally doing everything he can to shed his so called moderate label - everyone should vote for him. Well McBush hasn't earned my vote yet.

Reactionaries, religious right, and a dozen other pejoratives. I hope you use the same types of words for extremists on the left like Obama, Ginsberg and Kennedy. You know words like ultra-leftwing, communist, and radical leftist. Since when is a Constitutionalist a reactionary? And who on earth gives the state the right to steal from one citizen and give it to another. That's right, its for the children. :mad: The party of Jefferson has no right to its own name. McCain is a clown, and so is the idiot from the other party, I have no use for either of them. But Democrats have proven time and again, when they say compromise, they mean getting their way, when they praise a so called Republican for his "maverick positions," they are full of crap. You and your party used McCain, and in the end you would have never voted for him. Democrats will always vote for the yellow dog, as long as he or she has a D behind his name.

[TstebinsB]

McCain is clueless as to which issues he supports and which issues a Republican should support. Republicans don't trust him and as a Republican himself, Democrats can't trust him. Many people say that McCain would be great with international issues. Perhaps but this is the same guy who said the US could spend 100 years in Iraq. :eek: :confused:

Obama has given many pretty speeches but I need to look up his actual position on specific issues. I expect them come out more and more as his campaign goes along.

[BMWRider]

I don't necessarily like Obama but voting for him can't be worse than those of you who voted for G. Dubya for the second go-around. How's that working out for ya? I don't mention this because I'm trying to defend a Democrat. I'm saying it because most of the participants in these political threads have been conservative voters, most likely being Republicans. That being said, voting for Bush in 2004 takes away all your credibility to discuss this election.

I would never vote for a leftist like Bush. The Democratic and Republican parties are one in the same. Between the two we have managed to rack up $59 Trillion in debt. It will take 75 consecutive years of double digit economic growth to pay that off, the problem is we have never even had one year of double digit growth. Now the buffoons (Dems and Reps) are talking about socialized healthcare, as if the well isn't already dry. Where on God's green earth is the money coming from. The average American already gives up over 50% of his or her earnings. And if a politician says a program is cost neutral, hes not telling a lie, hes telling a damn lie. In another 15 years we will have more people drawing from social security than paying into it. Hope all you good Obama and McCain voters enjoy paying your $3 to 5 thousand dollar a month FICA taxes. If your supposition is that Bush was worse than the previous guy, good luck with that. This nation has had a string of horrible, power grabbing, anti-Constitutional Presidents. Having said that, your argument that voting for Bush takes away your credibility to discuss the current election is balderdash. Same can be said for the folks who voted for Clinton, Bush I, Kerry or Gore. They were all terrible candidates, and our nation deserved better.

[Shane]

(Wearing through the Rosary beads)

[MTgrayling]

But Democrats have proven time and again, when they say compromise, they mean getting their way

I've had my say and I'm outta this thread but I just wanted to say that this just hasn't happened at all the past 7 years. If it had the country would have been much better served than with the rubber stamp/spineless congress we currently have. I don't think there's a pair of testicles in the whole building!

[TstebinsB]

I would never vote for a leftist like Bush. The Democratic and Republican parties are one in the same. Between the two we have managed to rack up $59 Trillion in debt. It will take 75 consecutive years of double digit economic growth to pay that off, the problem is we have never even had one year of double digit growth. Now the buffoons (Dems and Reps) are talking about socialized healthcare, as if the well isn't already dry. Where on God's green earth is the money coming from. The average American already gives up over 50&#37; of his or her earnings. And if a politician says a program is cost neutral, hes not telling a lie, hes telling a damn lie. In another 15 years we will have more people drawing from social security than paying into it. Hope all you good Obama and McCain voters enjoy paying your $3 to 5 thousand dollar a month FICA taxes. If your supposition is that Bush was worse than the previous guy, good luck with that. This nation has had a string of horrible, power grabbing, anti-Constitutional Presidents. Having said that, your argument that voting for Bush takes away your credibility to discuss the current election is balderdash. Same can be said for the folks who voted for Clinton, Bush I, Kerry or Gore. They were all terrible candidates, and our nation deserved better.

That's based on what a voter deems as important issues regarding an election. Under Bush, we've had higher unemployment, lower housing prices, higher oil prices, slower business growth to the point of recession, increased militarization, increased debt due to militarization, no decision on Social Security while it's getting closer to being tapped out, no decision on illegal immigration while it has gotten worse, and thousands of deaths and casualties due to an invasion founded on illegitimate intelligence. Clinton had MANY faults - but not all of these.

[BMWRider]

I've had my say and I'm outta this thread but I just wanted to say that this just hasn't happened at all the past 7 years. If it had the country would have been much better served than with the rubber stamp/spineless congress we currently have. I don't think there's a pair of testicles in the whole building!

McCain-Feingold, Prescription Drugs, NCLB, all major bills that were supposed compromises. Not a one of them are "conservative," and most of the opposition came from the so called reactionaries. I have always said if you see McCain and Kennedy at a press conference, hang on to your wallet. I agree our congress has been pretty spineless, and both parties have controlled it at some point in the last 7 years. We are in a terrible mess as a nation, and there is no real leader who is going to get us out of it. McCain and Obama will spend the next five months promising to spend even more than what we do now, and we will continue to mortgage our future so these sorry candidates can get elected.

[BMWRider]

Under Bush, we've had higher unemployment, lower housing prices, higher oil prices, slower business growth to the point of recession, increased militarization, increased debt due to militarization, no decision on Social Security while it's getting closer to being tapped out, no decision on illegal immigration while it has gotten worse, and thousands of deaths and casualties due to an invasion founded on illegitimate intelligence. Clinton had MANY faults - but not all of these.

While some of this is true, some of it is not. Unemployment at the end of the Clinton administration was higher than it has been under Bush, which has peaked at 5.5%, we have not had a recession during the Bush administration, we did under Clinton. Remember a recession is "negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year." It simply has not happened in the last seven years. Housing prices skyrocketed during Bush's Presidency, today my house is still worth more than what I paid for it a mere 3 years ago. I agree with you regarding the other stuff. My point is not that Bush is better, my point is that they are all bad. I am more upset with Bush when it comes to his power grabbing, rights violating, lying, and other violations of the Constitution. He and the congress should be impeached.

[Shane]

(Puts down the Rosary)

Hollywood has nothing on Washington; at least the people in Hollywood have a tendency to admit that they are crazy.

The government is stupid regardless of who is in office at any given time. The presidency is the world's biggest Student Council President vote. It comes down to who everyone thinks is the coolest or the most "in", which is why Obama garners so much attention. But if you think he, or Hillary, or McCain are the solutions to anything, then you need to stop seeing your pusher and get off of the hard stuff. The government exists to contort and obfuscate rules and regulations as they see fit in order to make their jobs easier. Whiny professional athletes can't hold a candle to the Capitol Hill crowd; these jokers might go to work 100 days out of the year, get nothing done, and then have the ego to say they support "hard working Americans".

I know I might be preaching to the choir when it comes to some people here when I say this, but everything you see on the media when it concerns politicians in America is pure theatre. C-SPAN shows people in well-made clothing prattling on about "issues" when in fact they're only concerned with their re-election (this is especially true of congresspeople whose terms are only two years long). As long as they can paint a rosy picture of what they're doing, people will show up to vote for them regardless of the utter nonsense that the clowns in Washington purvey on a daily basis.

In fact, I think that there is entirely too much emphasis placed on federal government elections anyhow. Some people on this forum, me included, can go visit the local councilperson for their respective district without an appointment and actually talk about issues that directly affect their lives. They can talk about levies, taxation, fixing roads, historical preservation efforts, school funding, anything and everything that affects them more directly than some pithy federal stimulus check ever could.

I know that a lot of stuff that the eternal goofballs in D.C. do affect us, but it's democracy in action. We're the ones electing them into office, so essentially we're slapping ourselves in the face. I just hope that sometime in the near future the rock n' roll politics can subside, conservatives AND liberals AND moderates AND independents can take a long, hard look around and realize that the government couldn't care less about any of us, and then maybe, just maybe, we'll use the bond formed by the realization of our collective insignificance to our elected officials as the path to friendship.

(Picks up Rosary and starts praying again)

[TstebinsB]

While some of this is true, some of it is not. Unemployment at the end of the Clinton administration was higher than it has been under Bush, which has peaked at 5.5&#37;, we have not had a recession during the Bush administration, we did under Clinton. Remember a recession is "negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year." It simply has not happened in the last seven years. Housing prices skyrocketed during Bush's Presidency, today my house is still worth more than what I paid for it a mere 3 years ago. I agree with you regarding the other stuff. My point is not that Bush is better, my point is that they are all bad. I am more upset with Bush when it comes to his power grabbing, rights violating, lying, and other violations of the Constitution. He and the congress should be impeached.

We agree on both parties' incompetence.

However, regarding your national unemployment figures, the US Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf) states that in Papa Bush's last year, 1992, unemployment was at 7.5%. Clinton reduced it every year to 4.0% in his last year of 2000. In Bush II's first year, umeployment shot up to 4.7% and the following rates were 2002 (5.8%), 2003 (6.0%), 2004 (5.5%), and 2005 (5.1%). The years 2006 and 2007 have been at 4.6%. It's not as low as Clinton's last year but I suppose I should be happy it's not going up again. Unemployment isn't the only aspect of financial stability but it's a big part, and to to me, those numbers show negative economic growth with G. Dubya.

As for housing prices, the market value isn't indicative of a good market. Housing prices peaked in 2002-2003 to all-time highs. However, those houses are no longer worth as much as they were purchased for. If you purchased a $300,000 home in 2000, the house may be worth $450,000 today. That's fantastic. But if you purchased a home for $550,000 in 2003, that home may be worth $450,000 today as well. In other words, you now have a mortgage for a home that cannot appraise at the value you purchased it at. If you're having problems paying that mortgage, selling the home won't help you because you'll be short. Of course, real estate is localized but this has a been a big trend and one of the factors for the increased number of foreclosures.

[BMWRider]

I have been put in the unenviable position of defending one of two idiots, Bush or Clinton. Tste, though I feel you make good points, I am not sure I really want to defend either Bush or Clinton. The Bush economy has not been a bad economy, the media jumps up and down and screams that the sky is falling, but it really is not. I have not forgotten the Carter economy (double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates) and know that despite any attempts by the media to rehabilitate him, the peanut farmer meddled in things he had no business meddling in. What this really comes down to are the two very poor choices we have today. After 19 consecutive years of terrible incompetence in the White House, we are ensured at least four more. Neither McCain or Obama will roll back the horrible violations of our natural rights. They will both continue to issue illegal executive orders. Additionally they will both pass legislation that will drive more industry into Mexico, cause even more increases in the price of oil, and even further an increase in a national debt that is already unconscionable. Social Security will continue to drag our nation into the bankruptcy spiral and neither of them will face the fact that people must be allowed to opt out in order to save us from the "lock box bomb." Our Supreme Court will allow itself to be pulled into a debate that they have no business being involved in, yet will ignore illegal wire tapping, spying on Americans, government video cameras, violations of habeas corpus, and all the other crap that goes on without our knowledge. Whether Obama or McCain is elected, they will appoint judges who continue to protect government from the people.

To those who buy the media hype let me explain, McCain is simply a leftist, and Obama is an extreme leftist. If you want to walk into the polls in November and pretend you are voting against a "reactionary conservative," enjoy your delusion. There is no way Barry Goldwater or Robert Taft , both real conservatives would have ever supported the body of legislation John McCain has. Neoconservatives may be neo, but they are not conservative. You who allow yourselves to be wound up by who McCain is courting, remove yourself for a moment from your passions and look at the other candidate, his best buddy belonged to the Weather Underground. For those of you too young to remember, they were an ultra-radical group that committed terrorist acts in the late 60s and 70s. They were not peace, love and understanding hippies. His other associations are no better. Both McCain and Obama are poor choices. Bob Bahr, the Libertarian Party candidate is a Republican retread who has a questionable voting record. Unless a viable third party candidate emerges, we are in a world of hurt.

I will simply conclude with a quote from my favorite Presidential candidate, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

[Dr. Mike]

As I have said, given the option between McCain and Obama, I at least trust McCain on the issue of dealing with terrorists abroad (although I have issues with his plans for Gitmo). I also appreciate that he does not send pork back to his constituents. That being said, my taxes are going up regardless. Before the next president completes their first term in office, the Bush tax cuts will phase out, and I will lose at least $1000 in tax credits as the Child Tax Credit will drop from $1000/child to $500/child. I am not sure yet whether the marriage penalty, which will also return in 2011 when the tax cuts phase out, will affect me. I know the Democratic Congress likes to say they won't raise taxes on the middle class, but it is really just a semantics game when they don't intend to continue tax cuts. Really, we could even argue that the recent increase in gas prices is not an increase, rather we are simply phasing out the price reduction that came in the wake of the oil crisis of the late 70s.

I am going to see higher prices on energy with either in the White House, because both candidates propose insane energy policies (cap-and-trade) based on global warming theories, and will have a compliant Congress. Deficits will increase or taxes will go up to pay for the social services extended to all of the illegal immigrants that either candidate will grant amnesty to with the help of a compliant Congress. Even if the ratio of the parties stays the same in Congress, Republicans have proven themselves too spineless to vote against any increased spending at the very least, and often are just as happy to take it.

No, I'm afraid that we are seeing history repeat itself. We are back in the LBJ/Nixon years, with both parties more than willing to spend our money frivolously and neither particularly friendly to conservative ideals. Give it time, and we will see another conservative backlash, once the bill comes in for the cost of voting in people who we selfishly hope will rob from others to give to us. Now, just as then, the Republicans only distinguish themselves from the Democrats by placing a higher priority on national security and the issue of abortion.

Like I said, I'm writing in Johnny Ramone!

[ouch]

I've had my say and I'm outta this thread but I just wanted to say that this just hasn't happened at all the past 7 years. If it had the country would have been much better served than with the rubber stamp/spineless congress we currently have. I don't think there's a pair of testicles in the whole building!

You're forgetting Hillary.

[BMWRider]

Before the next president completes their first term in office, the Bush tax cuts will phase out, and I will lose at least $1000 in tax credits as the Child Tax Credit will drop from $1000/child to $500/child. I am not sure yet whether the marriage penalty, which will also return in 2011 when the tax cuts phase out, will affect me. I know the Democratic Congress likes to say they won't raise taxes on the middle class, but it is really just a semantics game when they don't intend to continue tax cuts.

That is a little known secret Obama and his crowd will not tell the American people. My taxes will also go up, and I have never broken $100K in income any year of my life, in fact the wife and I combined do not break it. Essentially we will get screwed, and the Democratic Party, "friends of the working man and teachers" will be driving it deep. I suppose I should take solace in the fact that at least I am paying for Nancy Pelosi's gasoline and leased car.

[Dr. Mike]

That is a little known secret Obama and his crowd will not tell the American people. My taxes will also go up, and I have never broken $100K in income any year of my life, in fact the wife and I combined do not break it. Essentially we will get screwed, and the Democratic Party, "friends of the working man and teachers" will be driving it deep. I suppose I should take solace in the fact that at least I am paying for Nancy Pelosi's gasoline and leased car.

Agree with you completely here. My wife and I are nowhere near the $100K mark - neither of us has even been out of college for more than 5 years. X-ray techs and postdoctoral scientists aren't exactly abundant in the "rich" category. And yet I will see my taxes raised. My middle class family pays 2 city taxes, state taxes, 7.25% sales tax, property taxes that are both higher in rate and actual amount than my mother pays for a house 4 times the value in California, and Federal taxes (including all of the payroll taxes). And now I am going to pay even more in federal taxes, because, supposedly, I am one of those rich people that disproportionately benefited from the Bush tax cuts at the expense of the poor people around me (who likely didn't pay any taxes). If the Republicans would have been excited about making the Bush tax cuts permanent as they were to support that ludicrous farm bill, I might still have some faith in their lip service to conservative values.

Reagan made permanent tax cuts, and he didn't even have the benefit of his party controlling 2 of the 3 branches of government. I blame Democrats partially for not making the tax cuts permanent, but I blame Republicans more - and my memory is not so short that I have forgotten that McCain voted against the tax cuts, and only recently has "seen the light."

[TstebinsB]

Funny thing is I always thought Democrats would have lined up to vote for McCain. I have heard quite a few claim he was a Republican they could vote for. Now that push comes to shove, they are backing down fast. I guess that was a load of manure. This is a sad, sad election.

From reading news reports today, many Clinton supporters have stated that they refuse to vote for Obama. They've aligned themselves with McCain. The defeat is still fresh so their emotions may be taking them to McCain for this week. However, months from now, when the campaign machines start to roll, we'll see if they stick to him.

[TstebinsB]

That was not an accomplishment, that was a necessity.

It seems to me that he has gotten this far by using his stage presence. That, I will say, he has in abundance. He is a remarkable orator.

But then again, so was Hitler.

And so were Winston Churchill and FDR, also from that era. What's your point exactly?

[jazzman]

I would never vote for a leftist like Bush. The Democratic and Republican parties are one in the same. Between the two we have managed to rack up $59 Trillion in debt. It will take 75 consecutive years of double digit economic growth to pay that off, the problem is we have never even had one year of double digit growth. Now the buffoons (Dems and Reps) are talking about socialized healthcare, as if the well isn't already dry. Where on God's green earth is the money coming from. The average American already gives up over 50% of his or her earnings. And if a politician says a program is cost neutral, hes not telling a lie, hes telling a damn lie. In another 15 years we will have more people drawing from social security than paying into it. Hope all you good Obama and McCain voters enjoy paying your $3 to 5 thousand dollar a month FICA taxes. If your supposition is that Bush was worse than the previous guy, good luck with that. This nation has had a string of horrible, power grabbing, anti-Constitutional Presidents. Having said that, your argument that voting for Bush takes away your credibility to discuss the current election is balderdash. Same can be said for the folks who voted for Clinton, Bush I, Kerry or Gore. They were all terrible candidates, and our nation deserved better.

Isn't there a B&B rule against using addition and subtraction in this forum?:wink:

You know I disagree with you on many issues, but isn't it frustrating that neither party can come up with one candidate who will tell the voters the truth about the relatively painless ways we can fix some of these math problems?

[bluesbro1982]

But then again, so was Hitler.

Godwin's law! Thread over :-)

[kongjie]

Godwin's law! Thread over :-)

Yes, there should be an automatic lock.

[BMWRider]

Sorry this falls into the following:

"Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."

Stop abusing Godwin's Law!

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[BMWRider]

You know I disagree with you on many issues, but isn't it frustrating that neither party can come up with one candidate who will tell the voters the truth about the relatively painless ways we can fix some of these math problems?

I wish, I am not beholden to either party and actually would be thrilled if Democrats would return to their roots. Jim Webb intrigues me, he may have some serious potential. We shall see over the next couple of years.

[bluesbro1982]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/regarding_mussolini.png

[MTgrayling]

Jim Webb intrigues me, he may have some serious potential. We shall see over the next couple of years.

A big +1! Jim Webb is a true hero of the downtrodden. I admire him greatly and would vote him into the Presidency in a heartbeat. Who else besides John Edwards is actually talking about the shift to enormous, and unsustainable, inequality in our country since Reagan?

[bluesbro1982]

Jim Webb intrigues me, he may have some serious potential. We shall see over the next couple of years.

BIG +1 there. I am voting for Obama, but it would be awesome if he selects Jim Webb as his VP. If (God forbid) something were to happen to Obama IF he gets elected, I'd think that Jim Webb would rise from VP in the same fashion as TR, though that is probably a bit of hyperbole.

[TstebinsB]

I wish, I am not beholden to either party and actually would be thrilled if Democrats would return to their roots. Jim Webb intrigues me, he may have some serious potential. We shall see over the next couple of years.


A big +1! Jim Webb is a true hero of the downtrodden. I admire him greatly and would vote him into the Presidency in a heartbeat. Who else besides John Edwards is actually talking about the shift to enormous, and unsustainable, inequality in our country since Reagan?


BIG +1 there. I am voting for Obama, but it would be awesome if he selects Jim Webb as his VP. If (God forbid) something were to happen to Obama IF he gets elected, I'd think that Jim Webb would rise from VP in the same fashion as TR, though that is probably a bit of hyperbole.

Don't lock the thread yet! We have a consensus!

+3 for Jim Webb. Obama definitely needs him as his VP even though Webb says he doesn't want the position.

[Bowcephalus]

"Godwin's Law" and Barack Obama.............That makes two empty suits.........

[BMWRider]

I am shocked that Democrats would like Jim Webb, he is certainly more conservative than John McCain. To me he is a throwback to the 60s when southern Democrats were the conservatives. If he were the candidate I would be voting for him. He is not totally reflective of my politics, but is a man of great honor, a trait about which most politicians have no knowledge. I hope Washington does not take that from him. I have always been told that the best alliance politically would be paleo-conservatives and the traditional left. We see that when Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich work together. Think about it my liberal friends. I do know that unlike Obama and Hillary, I was against the war from the beginning.

[Bflobill 1125]

I am shocked that Democrats would like Jim Webb, he is certainly more conservative than John McCain. To me he is a throwback to the 60s when southern Democrats were the conservatives. If he were the candidate I would be voting for him. He is not totally reflective of my politics, but is a man of great honor, a trait about which most politicians have no knowledge. I hope Washington does not take that from him. I have always been told that the best alliance politically would be paleo-conservatives and the traditional left. We see that when Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich work together. Think about it my liberal friends. I do know that unlike Obama and Hillary, I was against the war from the beginning.
Whether or not Jim Webb would be a good running mate for Sen.Obama is open to debate but Obama was opposed to the war from the beginning.................just to clarify.

[BMWRider]

Whether or not Jim Webb would be a good running mate for Sen.Obama is open to debate but Obama was opposed to the war from the beginning.................just to clarify.

No he wasn't. It is a myth he perpetuates and has no basis in fact. He has voted for every bill that continues the war and only gives lip service to the anti-war crowd. How you vote is much more important than what you say. He voted identically to the way Hillary did.

[BMWRider]

In case one thinks I am mistaken when it comes to Obama's anti-war stance I offer the following.

In 2007 he voted against John Murtha's troop redeployment bill that would have withdrawn troops from Iraq. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4442:)

He voted to fund the war every time a bill came before Congress until he decided to run for President. (http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2007_Meet_the_Press_Barack_Obama.htm)

He has supported the counterinsurgency strategy (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward/index.php) also endorsed by McCain.

If you would like to learn more about how Obama has voted instead of what he has said check out this article. (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275)

[oldschool77]

In case one thinks I am mistaken when it comes to Obama's anti-war stance I offer the following.

In 2007 he voted against John Murtha's troop redeployment bill that would have withdrawn troops from Iraq. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4442:)

He voted to fund the war every time a bill came before Congress until he decided to run for President. (http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2007_Meet_the_Press_Barack_Obama.htm)

He has supported the counterinsurgency strategy (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward/index.php) also endorsed by McCain.

If you would like to learn more about how Obama has voted instead of what he has said check out this article. (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275)

When this is all over, Obama may well be looked at by future generations as the textbook definition of "political expedience".

[Bubarubu]

It's a natural thing as part of the election cycle, but this thread helps illustrate why the US isn't and shouldn't be a direct democracy. So far, Obama has been compared to Hitler, which is so obviously idiotic as to be practically beyond comment. He's also been called communistic and socialistic, which are both terrible adjectives, but also thrown around in such a way as to obliterate any real meaning. Clinton has been called a man, which points up the "double bind" women face in almost any professional environment and more than hints at a virulent chauvinism. McCain has at least been treated better so far, but his character has also been questioned. That we have more than three pages of this nonsense that passes for political discussion, even in a supposedly non-political forum like this one, helps explain why at least half the people don't vote and most of the half that do have no idea what they're voting for beyond absurd caricatures.

[DanOK]

+1 Hear! Hear!

[soapbox]

It's a natural thing as part of the election cycle, but this thread helps illustrate why the US isn't and shouldn't be a direct democracy.

Yep. I agree with you too.

One little point: the US isn't a direct democracy but rather a representative democracy; strictly speaking, I think we're a republic.

But your point is well made.

Jesse

[cl00bie]

That was not an accomplishment, that was a necessity.

It seems to me that he has gotten this far by using his stage presence. That, I will say, he has in abundance. He is a remarkable orator.

But then again, so was Hitler.

I was going to make that point, but you beat me to it. Hitler gave the German people a promise of hope and change. I don't think he articulated exactly what that change might be until they were well into it.

[cl00bie]

Lincoln, Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Bush II are other leaders who had objectively inadequate experience, but were able to communicate with the public in ways that brought them popularity. Buchanan, Carter, Bush I, TR, and FDR had outstanding resumes. There are bums, idiots, failures, and heroes in each group (you can probably guess how I'd categorize them). My point is that experience isn't everything.

But you should at least have some.


Everyone can see how smart and educated Obama is,

Smart and educated isn't everything. :smile:


so go to his website and decide whether you agree with enough of his positions to vote for him. According to all opinion polls, most Americans agree with him on most of the important issues and disagree with McCain. If McCain wins, it will be for reasons other than policy positions. Leadership abilities? Age? Singing voice? The reason we don't discuss in polite company?

And look over his well crafted and vetted policy positions designed specifically to maximize votes? My big questions is: "Who is Obama? Who is he really?" If I think Obama is a crook and a liar, what good does it do to listen to what he says he's going to do? I prefer to let actions speak louder than words, and actions are pretty thin on the part of Obama.

Even if you don't particularly like John McCain, you have a long history of policy positions that he's taken by voting. I have a pretty good idea what to expect from him.

I think that the person who will ultimately defeat Obama will be Obama (or possibly his wife who is a hate filled anti-American harridan).

[cl00bie]

Under Bush, we've had higher unemployment, ...

When unemployment was higher during Clinton's term, the parrot press referred to it as "practically full employment".

[jazzman]

Hitler gave the German people a promise of hope and change. I don't think he articulated exactly what that change might be until they were well into it.

Not that it has anything to do with the 2008 US presidential election, but you are as wrong as you could be. He wrote a book and gave speeches beginning in the 1920's stating exactly where he stood.

[jazzman]

And look over his well crafted and vetted policy positions designed specifically to maximize votes? My big questions is: "Who is Obama? Who is he really?" If I think Obama is a crook and a liar, what good does it do to listen to what he says he's going to do? I prefer to let actions speak louder than words, and actions are pretty thin on the part of Obama.


I share these concerns, but I'm going to vote for Obama anyway because I disagree with most of McCain's positions. His support for some military actions, while denouncing others, really leaves me wondering what he will do.

[BMWRider]

Not that it has anything to do with the 2008 US presidential election, but you are as wrong as you could be. He wrote a book and gave speeches beginning in the 1920's stating exactly where he stood.

People do not like to think about it. It makes the nations who turned away the ship of Jewish immigrants look bad.

[cl00bie]

Not that it has anything to do with the 2008 US presidential election, but you are as wrong as you could be. He wrote a book and gave speeches beginning in the 1920's stating exactly where he stood.

Naw... That could never happen here... could it?

[cl00bie]

I share these concerns, but I'm going to vote for Obama anyway because I disagree with most of McCain's positions. His support for some military actions, while denouncing others, really leaves me wondering what he will do.

That's reasonable. Though if you really want to know what McCain is going to do, look to his record rather than the speech du jour aimed at whatever specific constituency he might want to reach.

I have to come clean and say I don't like either of these guys. I never thought that I'd find a politician I disliked more than Hillary Clinton, but I've found one in Barack Obama.

[sanuginz]

Ron Paul is the only choice.

I will never vote for a CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) frontman like Obama or McCain. By the way, the Bilderberg Group finally admitted they exist and released their first ever press release. The 56th annual 3 day meeting is taking place in Chantilly, VA with no mainstream media and 150 top world leaders attending. Supposedly Hillary and Obama met to decide who would be the presidential "frontman" and the vice president "puppet" is to be decided as well by the world elites.

Don't let the global elites pick our leaders for us. Choose a populist. Go RON PAUL!!

[Bowcephalus]

That we have more than three pages of this nonsense that passes for political discussion, even in a supposedly non-political forum like this one, helps explain why at least half the people don't vote and most of the half that do have no idea what they're voting for beyond absurd caricatures.
Read it all did ya? Thanks for the critique of the conversation. I suppose it's compulsion with you.

"This is the place to shoot the breeze, and for all off topic conversations that don't relate to shaving."

[Bowcephalus]

........Although 3 pages of politics in the "barbershop", base as it may be in places, is far less than the infinite B.S. put out by any candidate you could or will endorse to "run the country". B.S. which probably has a greater impact turning voters off across the nation than a casual conversation on some internet forum.

[jazzman]

........Although 3 pages of politics in the "barbershop", base as it may be in places, is far less than the infinite B.S. put out by any candidate you could or will endorse to "run the country". B.S. which probably has a greater impact turning voters off across the nation than a casual conversation on some internet forum.

It's really beyond me how some people can be so positive about Hillary Clinton (for whom I voted in the primary) or Barack Obama (for whom I will vote in November). They seem mesmerized, and I just don't get it. I vote for them on the issues, but they've never inspired me to look past the fact that they're mere politicians. McCain doesn't seem to inspire anything from anyone. Is this the best we can do?

[AaronX]

Is this the best we can do?

IMO no but it's what we've got to work with.

[BMWRider]

Ron Paul is the only choice....

Don't let the global elites pick our leaders for us. Choose a populist. Go RON PAUL!!

I think I shall write his name in this November. At least I won't have to take a shower after I vote. The rest of them are disgusting.

[sanuginz]

I think I shall write Ron Paul's name in this November. At least I won't have to take a shower after I vote. The rest of them are disgusting.

+1,000

[Bflobill 1125]

I share these concerns, but I'm going to vote for Obama anyway because I disagree with most of McCain's positions. His support for some military actions, while denouncing others, really leaves me wondering what he will do. +1 Who wants four more years of failed Republican nonsense? NOT ME!

[MotoMike]

+1 Who wants four more years of failed Republican nonsense? NOT ME!

I know I shouldn't do this, but here I go again...I see that we have gone from "no mater your opinions it is going to be interesting" or words to that effect to Republican nonsense. I am not voting for the candidate that I would like to see in office, because he is not there to vote for. So then I must choose the lesser of the evils.

I live in Illinois and as a police officer I have watched Obama in the state house. Now this is my opinion, he is the greatest of the evils from which to choose. He is no friend to law enforcement. He claims to vote his conscious and says he can make the tough decisions. A look at his voting history in Illinois will show you otherwise. In Illinois they can vote "present" instead of yea or nay. In many instances he voted "present" when the issue was tough. If he were to vote one way he would alienate his base, vote the other way and risk getting the “soft on crime” label. Even with this, he managed to vote anti law and order and soft on crime in many instances. It was laughable to hear him claim Hillary (the second greatest evil) was trying to buy votes with her suggestion to suspend the gas tax. He is guilty of the very same thing with the racial profiling study he shoved down the throat of every policeman in Illinois.

Obama is as far from my ideology as you can get. I have read that organizations who are proud of being liberal rate him as the most liberal senator. If you think that is true, put him in the white house. You ain't seen nothin yet.

As to writing in Ron Paul. It might feel good to vote your conscious, but it will only help Obama.

Vote Naval Air:biggrin:

[ScottS]

Carter II...The similarities of circumstance are striking....

You got that right. A Republican pushing the bounds of Executive Power. I don't think Obama will be the pussycat Carter was, though.

[ScottS]

Funny thing is I always thought Democrats would have lined up to vote for McCain. I have heard quite a few claim he was a Republican they could vote for. Now that push comes to shove, they are backing down fast. I guess that was a load of manure. This is a sad, sad election.

I wouldn't be all that upset by a McCain presidency. I'm uncomfortable with some of his stances, and his Supreme Court choices. I was very unhappy with how he just rolled on his anti-torture stance, giving up the opportunity to rein this abomination in.

These days, I think McCain is just too old for the job. He's got that old man shuffle. I think cognitively, he's not nearly as sharp as he was eight years ago. I think this is the real reason why he hasn't taken advantage of the two-month freebie he was handed with respect to the national campaign-- he just won't hold up to public scrutiny, and the more he's kept off the stage, the better. I think the campaign trail will be extremely hard on him. I'm not really sure he's a viable candidate.

[ScottS]

I have not forgotten the Carter economy (double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates) and know that despite any attempts by the media to rehabilitate him, the peanut farmer meddled in things he had no business meddling in.


Funny, I haven't heard the term "stagflation" since the Carter years-- oops, until this year, I mean.

[sanuginz]

I am not voting for the candidate that I would like to see in office, because he is not there to vote for. So then I must choose the lesser of the evils.

As to writing in Ron Paul. It might feel good to vote your conscious, but it will only help Obama.

Vote Naval Air:biggrin:

But I will sleep well at night knowing I voted my conscious.

As to helping Obama - he is the same as McCain in my eyes. Besides Ron Paul needs the momentum to run again in 2012.

[Dr. Mike]

Obama and McCain are hardly the same. They are like-minded on certain issues, but Obama is still a bit more extreme. Both want cap-and-trade, but Obama wants it bigger. Both want amnesty for illegals, but Obama wants it bigger.

Look, here is how it is going to play out. Republicans will vote for McCain. Democrats will vote for Obama (the shrill cries from the disaffected Hillary fanatics notwithstanding). The independents will vote for either one, or write in their preference-du jour. The whole election will be decided by less than 5%. Check out all the polls out there. Looking at individual state polls at who they would break for (Obama or McCain), currently it looks like Obama may beat McCain by less than 20 electoral votes. That is pretty pathetic for the Democrats. By all estimates, this should have been a lopsided victory to rival any that Reagan ever got. Bush's approval ratings are down. Iraq is unpopular. While I think the post about stagflation is ridiculous to the point of being absurd, there is economic turmoil with the housing crisis and oil going through the roof. This is like the perfect political storm for Democrats, and their liberal savior loses 7 of the last 13 primaries he had to contest to an opponent who had not had a shot at winning for a couple months, and now it looks like he'll only pull out a win in November by the skin of his teeth.

What that tells me is this - all McCain needs is a minor bump in his direction, and he can do what should have been the impossible - win a third term for an unpopular party. What could this be? Anything. If Iran does something stupid, Obama's plans for diplomacy look even more idiotic. If gas prices plateau, or even drop, that might do it - not likely, though. If Iraq shows even more improvement than it already has (yes, it has, only a fool would not admit that at this point, whether you like it or not), then McCain could win. The Democrats have really squandered what should have been a slam dunk. They could have strung together a bunch of victories in Congress to show that it was the right thing to put them in power. Instead, they merely appear feckless and petty, holding hearing after hearing that has produced exactly zilch, so now their top candidate doesn't even have accomplishments from his pitifully short time in the Senate to point to, other than rolling over and playing dead to the Bush White House that has managed to pass every Iraq bill that the Democrats swore they would defeat.

[whisker]

The Republican party needs someone, that really is for less goverment, less taxes and less spending. McCain is a democrat in Repullican robe. In the most part so is Bush.

Who will lead the Republicans back to the core.

[sullivanpm]

The Republican party needs someone, that really is for less goverment, less taxes and less spending. McCain is a democrat in Repullican robe. In the most part so is Bush.

Who will lead the Republicans back to the core.
Bobby Jindal
in 2012

[ouch]

The Republican party needs someone, that really is for less goverment, less taxes and less spending. McCain is a democrat in Repullican robe. In the most part so is Bush.

Who will lead the Republicans back to the core.

I already cast my vote.

[Dr. Mike]

The Republican party needs someone, that really is for less goverment, less taxes and less spending. McCain is a democrat in Repullican robe. In the most part so is Bush.

Who will lead the Republicans back to the core.

Not really. He is more similar to the variety of Republican that dominated the party prior to the Reagan revolution. He veers towards the Reagan model in a couple of areas, including defense and reigning in wasteful spending. I wouldn't call him a Democrat any more than I would call Joe Lieberman a Republican. I would rate him as similar to George H. W. Bush.

[jfever311]

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u172/jfever311/people/achdirective_1954_1405546.jpg

[MTgrayling]

These days, I think McCain is just too old for the job.

Obviously. I used to respect Mcain many, many years ago when he may well have been a maverick. Anyone remember the 2000 primaries and what the Bush campaign did to him and how he then in turn campaigned for Bush? A maverick, or someone with a spine/conscience, would not bend over like that even if it was in the best interest of the party. I think Robert Smigel hit it right on the nose with his "Saturday TV Funhouse" lampoon of that situation on SNL.

7 pages and no one mentioned Nader. I'm not truly decided yet and as this brawl we call the election process grows like a disease he looks better and better every day. Whatever you think about Ralph you can't say the man doesn't have principles.

[ScottS]

7 pages and no one mentioned Nader. I'm not truly decided yet and as this brawl we call the election process grows like a disease he looks better and better every day. Whatever you think about Ralph you can't say the man doesn't have principles.

The original "no difference between the parties" canard spreader.

[Dr. Mike]

Obviously. I used to respect Mcain many, many years ago when he may well have been a maverick. Anyone remember the 2000 primaries and what the Bush campaign did to him and how he then in turn campaigned for Bush? A maverick, or someone with a spine/conscience, would not bend over like that even if it was in the best interest of the party. I think Robert Smigel hit it right on the nose with his "Saturday TV Funhouse" lampoon of that situation on SNL.

7 pages and no one mentioned Nader. I'm not truly decided yet and as this brawl we call the election process grows like a disease he looks better and better every day. Whatever you think about Ralph you can't say the man doesn't have principles.

I would absolutely support any Democrat who chose to vote for Nader. :biggrin:

[MTgrayling]

I would absolutely support any Democrat who chose to vote for Nader. :biggrin:

I'm not a Democrat. I'm very independent.

[Dr. Mike]

I'm not a Democrat. I'm very independent.

I would support you, as well, were you to vote for Nader!:biggrin:

I am all for any Democrats and liberal-leaning independents voting for Nader!

[AandW]

I have read Obama's website and have heard some of his speaches.

I have some questions.

Can someone please tell me what is considered wealthy? Is it $50,000 per year? He does like to throw that income figure around.

What is wrong with being wealthy?

Why are those that are not wealthy think that the wealthy should not be wealthy?

Why is it that the $50,000 per year a senior citizen makes not worth as much as the $50,000 per year a non-senior citizen makes? He is not making seniors that make less than $50,000 per year pay taxes, there must be a reason? Is there an age component to being wealthy???

What is the numerical difference between a "profit" and a "windfall profit"?
Obama seems to bring up "windfall profits" as he attempts to fire up the crowds against those evil companies (You know the ones that most likely employ you with the profits they reinvest).

At what rate will "windfall profits" get taxed above and beyond just plain ole profits?

If there is such a thing as a "windfall profit" tax, will there be such a thing as a "huge loss" credit???

Obama continually states that he will make the income tax code more fair and simple. Is he for the "Flat Tax"? You know the one in which everyone pays the SAME FAIR TAX RATE period(no deductions, no credits, no cheating, no B.S.)

Why would anyone vote for someone who has stated on more that one occasion that he is going to raise your taxes? Yes, allowing the tax rate decreases to expire and INCREASE is a tax INCREASE?

[MTgrayling]

Why would anyone vote for someone who has stated on more that one occasion that he is going to raise your taxes? Yes, allowing the tax rate decreases to expire and INCREASE is a tax INCREASE?

I will answer for myself. Taxes are a small part of why I will vote for the candidate I vote for. The simple explanation is we are at war and we ALL need to sacrifice. The nations coffers are empty. People are going without food to pay for their gas to get to work. Yes people are hungry right now in the USA. Social programs are a shell of what they should be in this time of need.

There is nothing wrong with being wealthy if you earn the money and pay your taxes. Ceo's taking home tens of millions while their companies go bankrupt is not right and there is no possible way that they could have earned that compensation. Hedge fund managers paying less as a percentage in taxes than the people that clean their opulent gilded offices is flat out wrong. These things can't continue in a just society without a revolt, pure and simple. We are devolving into a plutocracy. All of these things are intertwined.

http://www.toomuchonline.org/inequality.html

The electronic newsletter link below is a great source of information you will get no where else. There is a link to subscribe.

http://www.toomuchonline.org/tmweekly.html

Your logic about Bush's tax giveaways is incorrect. Going back to a previous tax rate is not an INCREASE.

Why would anyone vote for a candidate that doesn't address the growing and crushing inequality in our nation?

[BMWRider]

Funny, I haven't heard the term "stagflation" since the Carter years-- oops, until this year, I mean.

This economy is nothing compared to the nonsense of the late 70s and early 80s. Any attempt to compare them is going to fall short. You can still get a home loan at 6%, unemployment is 5.5%, and inflation is less than 3.94%. No freakin' way this is even close to 1979's 11.22% percent inflation, or 1980's 13.58%.

[Bowcephalus]

+1 Who wants four more years of failed Republican nonsense? NOT ME!
...Now Bill, you know who has had the purse strings for a while now. How's it been since yo' buds took over the senate and house? How many democrat bills have recieved a Bush veto?

[Bowcephalus]

Republican pushing the bounds of Executive Power. I don't think Obama will be the pussycat Carter was, though.
Scott actually that is exactly what I had in mind. Nixon opened the door for the likes of Carter and a shrewd millionare politician from GA waltzed in on a wave of disgust. Obama's circumstance is as I said strikingly similar and I imagine the results will be quite similar as well.

Funny, I haven't heard the term "stagflation" since the Carter years-- oops, until this year, I mean. Yep that Pelosi chick got it goin' on.....You go gurl!

[Bowcephalus]

Ceo's taking home tens of millions while their companies go bankrupt is not right and there is no possible way that they could have earned that compensation. Hedge fund managers paying less as a percentage in taxes than the people that clean their opulent gilded offices is flat out wrong. These things can't continue in a just society without a revolt, pure and simple. We are devolving into a plutocracy. All of these things are intertwined.
You talkin' 'bout house and senate members, right?

[DunEdinRanger]

Exactly 143 days more experience than what currently occupies the Oval Office .... Ooops did I just argue with my own point. :biggrin:

And what accomplishments did he have even at the end of his first term, yet he was re-elected. Go figure.

I continue to be disappointed that while we pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves for being the greatest nation in the world, we can't seem to bring anything more than medicore candidates for our top governmental executive position.


What accomplishments did Lt. John F. Kerry mention, besides his innumerable purple hearts?

[ScottS]

Scott actually that is exactly what I had in mind. Nixon opened the door for the likes of Carter and a shrewd millionare politician from GA waltzed in on a wave of disgust. Obama's circumstance is as I said strikingly similar and I imagine the results will be quite similar as well.


The major difference I can think of is an active war.

By the way, I'm glad you eventually got there! I was concerned about the same thing a year and a half ago. Check out post 279 in http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php?t=22305&highlight=nixon&page=14

It actually wasn't very hard to predict.

[Bowcephalus]

Push comes to shove, he is leading a one-man campaign to restore pre-Nixonian power to the Executive Branch, hoping no one remembers why we limited this power. I'm just hoping that the result isn't the same as with Nixon--- a Carter-like next pres.
Well now that one merits a re-post.....Bully for you!...I'm gonna have to start listening to you a bit closer in the future ;)...Let's hope 4 years of Obama can give rise to another Reagan Revolution..........."Viva la Revolucion!"



(Let's just keep this between us though whaddayasay. Wouldn't want anyone to see me agree with a lib. professor ya know.)

[ScottS]

(Let's just keep this between us though whaddayasay. Wouldn't want anyone to see me agree with a lib. professor ya know.)

Now you've done it!!

bBXyB7niEc0

[Evbo]

I'm voting for Pat Paulsen.

[jazzman]

I'm voting for Pat Paulsen.

Paulsen? Heck No! Dizzy Gillespie for President!

[Bowcephalus]

Scott, LMAO.....Now you've got me wanting to attend your diversity committee meetings!.....

[bluesbro1982]

Paulsen? Heck No! Dizzy Gillespie for President!

You wanna great prez-dent, your vote is well spent..

Vote DI-zzy, vote DI-zzy

(Salt Peanuts)

Didn't he say he would make monk his secretary or state or something? I would have voted for him :-)

[ScottS]

Scott, LMAO.....Now you've got me wanting to attend your diversity committee meetings!.....

Us libs are a hedonistic bunch!

[jfever311]

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u172/jfever311/political/Freedomisnevermorethanonegeneration.jpg

[jazzman]

Dizzy for President!

[sullivanpm]

Riddle me this liberals of the forum?
How is Dems proposed windfall tax on oil companies going to lower the price of gasoline?

[micah1_8]

Ron Paul is the only choice.

I will never vote for a CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) frontman like Obama or McCain. By the way, the Bilderberg Group finally admitted they exist and released their first ever press release. The 56th annual 3 day meeting is taking place in Chantilly, VA with no mainstream media and 150 top world leaders attending. Supposedly Hillary and Obama met to decide who would be the presidential "frontman" and the vice president "puppet" is to be decided as well by the world elites.

Don't let the global elites pick our leaders for us. Choose a populist. Go RON PAUL!!

I wondered how long it would take for the Ron Paul crowd to chime in. I don't agree with everything he's for, but I've got to say, he makes the most sense to me. For whatever that's worth. OhBummer just puts me off somehow... I can't put my finger on what it is, but I've got a gut feeling about the man that I just can't shake. And Disdain just tastes like old chewing gum... I saw him talking about his economic advisor on some news show a few months back, and it was that lady that nearly killed HP! I mean, really, do want the woman that said, "Hey, I know, let's take our moderately growing, successful printer/camera company and buy out the worlds second biggest failure of a computer company!"

At least with Paul, I feel like he has a better handle on what money actually is, and how it should be handled. Any way you look at it, this tight belt I've been wearing for the last few years is just going to have to get tighter.

[jazzman]

Riddle me this liberals of the forum?
How is Dems proposed windfall tax on oil companies going to lower the price of gasoline?

Of course it won't. Has any Democratic politician said it would? It could be a good idea for other reasons, but the price of gas is going up because the dollar is going down and worldwide demand for oil is going up. No president has a magic wand to change worldwide demand for oil, and the dollar won't be recovering as long as we are borrowing hundreds of billions for Republican deficit spending (whatever happened to the party of fiscal responsibility?), particularly the war in Iraq.

[ScottS]

Riddle me this liberals of the forum?
How is Dems proposed windfall tax on oil companies going to lower the price of gasoline?

Worst case, by about the same amount that McCain's proposed regulation of Executive pay packages will. Best case, The US will use the profits the oil companies have refused to use to improve the oil refining infrastructure that the oil companies whine about.

[Dr. Mike]

Of course it won't. Has any Democratic politician said it would? It could be a good idea for other reasons, but the price of gas is going up because the dollar is going down and worldwide demand for oil is going up. No president has a magic wand to change worldwide demand for oil, and the dollar won't be recovering as long as we are borrowing hundreds of billions for Republican deficit spending (whatever happened to the party of fiscal responsibility?), particularly the war in Iraq.

The Republicans sold out their fiscal responsibility credentials, I'm sorry to say. They have taken out second and third mortgages on it, most recently with their support of the farm bill. But the war in Iraq is not what is killing us. Sorry, but fiscal irresponsibility is much older than that. Cut all spending to Iraq today, and all you will find is that spending diverted to other areas, most likely entitlements. Government never rolls back anything but tax cuts. And it is also no longer fair to lay the deficit spending at the Republicans' feet. Democrats wanted control of Congress, they got it - now they own all the troubles that come with it. Nothing, not a single spending bill, passes without their supporting it. So Republicans deserve the blame until about 1 year ago, when Democrats took over.


Worst case, by about the same amount that McCain's proposed regulation of Executive pay packages will. Best case, The US will use the profits the oil companies have refused to use to improve the oil refining infrastructure that the oil companies whine about.

Ah, so oil companies are not allowed to drill for new oil anywhere in the U.S., not even in ANWR, which Jimmy Carter set aside for drilling. They are heavily strapped by environmental regulations and red tape to make it next to impossible to build new refineries. They are constantly accused of price gouging on gas prices, even though every economist in the world agrees that it isn't the oil companies that set the price of oil. The state and federal governments make more money off of each gallon of gas than the oil companies themselves do. When more people start buying their product around the world, they are told that they are making "windfall" profits, and are therefore evil, and the government needs to take it from them. But all of our gas problems are their fault. Give me a break.

Here is what your little windfall tax will do. After a certain point, it will no longer be profitable for the oil companies to sell gas, because above and beyond a certain arbitrary point, the government will penalize them for making any more profits. So they stop producing as much. So then we have gas shortages. So then oil companies will be the target, once again, for opportunistic politicians. We have tried windfall profit taxes on oil companies before. Remember? They were part of Jimmy Carter's wonderful economic plan. They were passed in 1980. Reagan finally did away with them in '88. In case you don't recall their affect, I'll remind you. It was projected the government would earn $393 billion from them. When all was said and done, after 8 years, the total revenues amounted to $80 billion. And domestic oil production was lowered. So let me get this straight - the great change that Obama promises is nothing but a return to the failed economic policies of Carter that brought us even higher stagflation than when he took office? Anytime the government has come in and imposed controls on prices or profit, it has been disastrous. The high tariffs that Hoover signed into law helped push what should have only been a recession into a depression. The wage and price controls that Nixon signed into law kick-started the stagflation of the 70s, coupled with the oil embargo. The failed policies of Carter made them even worse. Only when Reagan came in and started removing some of that government control did the economy rebound.

On another note, I have a question for our Democrats reading. Will we finally hear no more that Bush stole the 2000 election? After all, your current candidate for the presidency won the nomination even though he lost the popular vote. And you can also say that he only won because the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee gave it to him. So much for every vote being counted.

[the beav]

As a political sidenote, is anyone planning to vote for Bob Barr on the Libertarian ticket or Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party?

For the record, as a former staunch Republican, I am going with the Constitution Party. I quit voting Republican eight years ago, although I would have voted for Ron Paul if he had become the Republican nominee.

[jazzman]

On another note, I have a question for our Democrats reading. Will we finally hear no more that Bush stole the 2000 election? After all, your current candidate for the presidency won the nomination even though he lost the popular vote. And you can also say that he only won because the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee gave it to him. So much for every vote being counted.

Sort of like asking whether we'll hear no more about the Civil War, Watergate, Monica-Gate, or Tea Pot Dome. The US defined itself as nothing better than a banana republic when the electoral college vote was stolen by a state governed by one candidate's brother's, through the brother's political appointees, as sanctioned by supreme court justices appointed by the same candidate's father (or the president whom he served as vice president), some of whom refused to recuse themselves despite close family ties to the candidate. Other than that, I guess I have no problem with the fact that Gore got more votes than Bush II.:wink:

Which part of the Constitution controls Democratic Party (or Republican Party) internal procedures?

BTW, not that it has much to do with the 2008 presidential election, but the Democratic Party has a pretty slim majority in Congress; the Democrats don't vote in lockstep with each other, unlike the other party; and the illegitimate president will veto anything proposed by the Democrats and passed with less than a veto-proof majority. Kind of hard to blame the Democrats for the continuation of the Bush II debacle.

[kwk285]

Seeing that I live in the Peoples Republic of Washington, I am strongly considering voting Libertarian. In the PRW, we haven't voted for a Republican in 24 years and I believe the same holds true for the Gov.

There was an article in the Seattle Times today saying that McCain is likely to write off the PRW. When he had a big fundraiser here a few months back, all of the money raised went to the National Party and to states that are in play.

[ouch]

Boo.

Nobody liked my candidate.

[Dr. Mike]

Sort of like asking whether we'll hear no more about the Civil War, Watergate, Monica-Gate, or Tea Pot Dome. The US defined itself as nothing better than a banana republic when the electoral college vote was stolen by a state governed by one candidate's brother's, through the brother's political appointees, as sanctioned by supreme court justices appointed by the same candidate's father (or the president whom he served as vice president), some of whom refused to recuse themselves despite close family ties to the candidate. Other than that, I guess I have no problem with the fact that Gore got more votes than Bush II.:wink: Interesting your revisionist history. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Gore, not Bush. In the 7-2 finding that the different methods of counting votes in different districts violated the Equal Protections Clause, the only 2 dissenters were Ginsburg, appointed by the guy who Gore VP'd for, and a Republican appointee, Stevens. In the 5-4 decision, only one of the H. W. Bush appointees sided with Bush - Souter didn't. Again, the 2 Clinton appointees sided with Gore. Shouldn't Breyer and Ginsburg also have recused themselves, if you are also going to count Reagan appointees?

Interesting, also, that every single legitimate recount that was performed, even slow, methodical, after-the-fact ones, all came to the same conclusion - Bush won the popular vote in Florida. Any way you slice it, those EC votes were legitimately won by Bush. The excess popular votes won by Gore to give him the lead in that category were from other states. You see, unlike the Democratic primary system, almost all states are all or nothing for the EC. So it doesn't matter if you win by 1% or sweep the state, you still just get the same number of electoral college votes. And with all the moaning about a stolen election, to date, the best your arguments have produced are 2nd rate made for HBO movies that are based in about as much fact as JFK conspiracy theories.


Which part of the Constitution controls Democratic Party (or Republican Party) internal procedures?
Oh, I see, it is only important to count all of the votes in the general election, or when you think that it will help your candidate. I am not saying the Constitution has any control whatsoever over Democratic party procedures - I'm simply saying that is the standard the Democrats set for themselves, and now that it doesn't turn the way they want it to, well, it isn't relevant. Do as I say, not as I do. One might consider that hypocrisy, which is not illegal or unconstitutional in any way, merely repellant.


BTW, not that it has much to do with the 2008 presidential election, but the Democratic Party has a pretty slim majority in Congress; the Democrats don't vote in lockstep with each other, unlike the other party; and the illegitimate president will veto anything proposed by the Democrats and passed with less than a veto-proof majority. Kind of hard to blame the Democrats for the continuation of the Bush II debacle.

Ah, no, you don't get out of it that easy. All spending bills originate with Congress. President Bush cannot put any spending bill up. It has to be done by the legislative branch, and he only has control over whether or not he wants to veto. He can certainly suggest how he would like money spent, but I think it is pretty safe to say that right now, that would probably fall on deaf ears. Furthermore, the party in power, regardless of how slim a majority, gets to decide which pieces of legislation will even be considered. That is the Democratic party. Any spending bill has to pass the approval of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to even get considered. Any and all deficit spending since they assumed control last year is owned by them. If it passes, then it is only because the president chose not to veto it, or enough Republicans joined in to give a veto-proof majority. But nothing passes without the majority's consent. From 2001 until 2007, it was the fault of the Republicans. Now it belongs to the Democrats. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[jazzman]

The case was not brought to the Supreme Court by Gore. As the Court stated, and as all of the newspapers, TV, etc., reported, "Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican candidates for President and Vice President, filed an emergency application for a stay of this [Florida court] mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari."

Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist had close relatives working for, or closely with, the Bush II campaign. This goes way beyond your example of a justice getting off of a case involving the president who appointed him, or the father of, or vice president of.

[ScottS]

The case was not brought to the Supreme Court by Gore. As the Court stated, and as all of the newspapers, TV, etc., reported, "Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican candidates for President and Vice President, filed an emergency application for a stay of this [Florida court] mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari."


Hey, lets not bring facts into this. Next you'll be telling us that AQ was not operating in Iraq before the war ;)

[Dr. Mike]

The case was not brought to the Supreme Court by Gore. As the Court stated, and as all of the newspapers, TV, etc., reported, "Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican candidates for President and Vice President, filed an emergency application for a stay of this [Florida court] mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari."

Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist had close relatives working for, or closely with, the Bush II campaign. This goes way beyond your example of a justice getting off of a case involving the president who appointed him, or the father of, or vice president of.

Alright, so if you remove Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist, that makes it a 4-2 decision to overturn based on Equal Protection, and you have the same result.

But you really don't have a basis for arguing they should have recused themselves. Read this article from CNN: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/12/supreme.court.conflict/
Nobody was working for, or closely with, the Bush campaign. Thomas' wife was working for the Heritage Foundation. 2 of Scalia's sons were working for the law firm that Ted Olsen belonged to, but neither was involved with the case, one hadn't even started working yet, the other had been hired 2 years before the election, and both had clauses written into their contracts stating that they would receive no income resulting from cases argued before the Supreme Court, something which several family members of Supreme Court justices have done. This is more of a "grasping at straws" argument. The Gore legal team did not challenge either Thomas or Scalia at the time.

The whole proposed strategy for performing the recount was idiotic. How does one determine the "intent" of the voter? You stare at a ballot, and try to determine what the voter really wanted to do. What if you see a pregnant chad, and assume that is what they really wanted, when it is just as plausible that a mistake was made. The ballots in dispute had been designed by Democrat-controlled local election boards. They had been published and made public long before so that people could make themselves familiar with the ballot. And again, you still haven't addressed the issue that, even when going back after the election was decided and recounting the ballots, Bush still won by every legal method for counting the ballots, and even would have won using the method requested by Gore. No, you see, the biggest problem is that Gore couldn't convince just 600 more people to vote for him instead of Nader. Nader took almost 100,000 votes in Florida that almost certainly would have otherwise gone for the Democrats, had they voted at all.

[jazzman]

Alright, so if you remove Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist, that makes it a 4-2 decision to overturn based on Equal Protection, and you have the same result.


No, you have a 2 to 4 minority, instead of a 5 to 4 majority, on the remedy, that is, the completely opposite "result." Say hi to President Gore, who would now be leaving office, having removed terrorism from the world and having replaced the internal combustion engine with granola-powered Jetson cars.:biggrin:

(It would be very unusual for a party to ask a Supreme Court justice to recuse himself or herself on these grounds. They are expected to do it without being asked.)

[Dr. Mike]

No, you have a 2 to 4 minority, instead of a 5 to 4 majority, on the remedy, that is, the completely opposite "result." Say hi to President Gore, who would now be leaving office, having removed terrorism from the world and having replaced the internal combustion engine with granola-powered Jetson cars.:biggrin:

(It would be very unusual for a party to ask a Supreme Court justice to recuse himself or herself on these grounds. They are expected to do it without being asked.)

Again, what grounds do you have to claim that they should have recused themselves? Is there some evidence other than the ones I and the article mentioned? Legal experts found no substantive arguments for Scalia and Thomas to recuse themselves. I'm not sure what your reasoning is in thinking that Rehnquist should have recused himself.

So assuming this alternate universe of yours, on what basis do you assert that terrorism would be removed from the world? Certainly the record of the Clinton administration, or, to be fair, any previous administration since terrorism has been an issue for the U.S., gives me no confidence that Gore would have done any more than his predecessors. In fact, based on his speeches and comments to the affect that global climate change is the most critical issue we face, I would argue he may have done even less than his immediate predecessor. Surely he would have, at the very least, stalled any invasion of Afghanistan until all of our armored vehicles had been retro-fitted with hybrid engines, or bio-diesel burning engines, or even electric motors. Based on his extensive travel in private jets, though, we might safely assume that he would have had no issue with aerial bombardment. After all, that was the go to strategy for the Clinton White House - and what a marvelous job it did to show those terrorists who was boss.

By the way, whether or not it is common practice, the fact remains that if Gore's legal team felt that they would not get a fair ruling with Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas hearing their arguments, they could have requested that those justices recuse themselves. It seems highly unlikely that, in light of every other measure that they took to get the outcome they wanted, they would have decided not to pursue just one more possibility, especially if the case for recusal, as you seem to believe, was so strong.

[jazzman]

I think Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, got it right when he said:


The endorsement of that position [i.e., Bush's lack of confidence in the state court] by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

Not to mention the obvious inconsistency with the usual Republican sentiment towards federalism.

[bonusmarple]

I have not made up my mind on who I will vote for in 2008. Both candidates support rubbish positions. Obama has the windfall tax and McCain has corporate tax cuts and insurance clearing houses. I also do not care for Obama's close relationship to two devoutly racist religious leaders. It is unlikely he has accepted these individuals as mentors and does not share some of their views.

That said, I seriously doubt that the leaders in my lifetime were not some variant of an "ist".

In the end, my two priorities are health care and education. I simply do not believe that the current health care policies are sustainable. Beyond all of the fears and moaning about Canada and every other civilized nation that has socialized medicine, I do believe this is the direction that we will need to go in if we are going to continue to be a valid world power. Currently, the only leader with a healthcare plan is Obama, so he is possibly my choice.

[Dr. Mike]

I have not made up my mind on who I will vote for in 2008. Both candidates support rubbish positions. Obama has the windfall tax and McCain has corporate tax cuts and insurance clearing houses. I also do not care for Obama's close relationship to two devoutly racist religious leaders. It is unlikely he has accepted these individuals as mentors and does not share some of their views.

That said, I seriously doubt that the leaders in my lifetime were not some variant of an "ist".

In the end, my two priorities are health care and education. I simply do not believe that the current health care policies are sustainable. Beyond all of the fears and moaning about Canada and every other civilized nation that has socialized medicine, I do believe this is the direction that we will need to go in if we are going to continue to be a valid world power. Currently, the only leader with a healthcare plan is Obama, so he is possibly my choice.

If this were true, then why is it that those countries who have gone down this road are becoming less and less of world powers? Europe, even combined in the EU, still relies on the military strength of the USA. Sure, the combined force of the EU is strong, but no single country can boast this title. You mentioned Canada. I have yet to hear them ever described as a world power. Oddly enough, we have risen to the top of that pile without the social programs, or at least without as massive of social programs, of these other countries - and they all depend on us to some extent or another.

[ScottS]

If this were true, then why is it that those countries who have gone down this road are becoming less and less of world powers?


Funny, it would seem that the country that has lost the most global power recently is the country without national health care.

[Dr. Mike]

I think Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, got it right when he said:


The endorsement of that position [i.e., Bush's lack of confidence in the state court] by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

Not to mention the obvious inconsistency with the usual Republican sentiment towards federalism.

Again, do you have further evidence to support the assertion that the 3 justices you mentioned should have recused themselves?

As for this decision undermining our confidence in the high court, I got a good chuckle from that. That he could write that with a straight face is an accomplishment in and of itself. What about Roe v. Wade, a decision which even Justice Ginsburg, arguably the most liberal justice on the court, believes was poorly argued? What about Kelo, which allows governments to steal land from private individuals to sell to other private individuals, just so they can collect higher tax revenues? What about Dred Scott v. Sandford?

[Dr. Mike]

Funny, it would seem that the country that has lost the most global power recently is the country without national health care.

By what measure do you base this assertion? Sure, they all like to trash talk, while holding their hands out. Regardless, even assuming your statement to be accurate, that still does not address the fact that, even if we had lost the most global power recently, how sad must these other countries be for us to still be higher than them?

[ScottS]

By what measure do you base this assertion? Sure, they all like to trash talk, while holding their hands out. Regardless, even assuming your statement to be accurate, that still does not address the fact that, even if we had lost the most global power recently, how sad must these other countries be for us to still be higher than them?

Aside from world view, and our ability to deploy our military much further than the current deployment, I'll just use the example of Iranians killing our soldiers, and us not able to do a damn thing about it, either militarily or diplomatically. This scenario 1) assumes that our government is telling us and the rest of the world the truth about the Iranian influence in Iraq, which is far from a given, and 2) if true, really comes about through a number of strategic and diplomatic blunders.

[jazzman]

What about Dred Scott v. Sandford?

Stevens is old, but not that old.:rolleyes:

[bonusmarple]

If this were true, then why is it that those countries who have gone down this road are becoming less and less of world powers? Europe, even combined in the EU, still relies on the military strength of the USA. Sure, the combined force of the EU is strong, but no single country can boast this title. You mentioned Canada. I have yet to hear them ever described as a world power. Oddly enough, we have risen to the top of that pile without the social programs, or at least without as massive of social programs, of these other countries - and they all depend on us to some extent or another.

I did not refer to Canada as anything other than a civilized nation. Bottom line, you have to depend on someone for access to health care. It can be a corporation that will provide benefits, or the government that provides healthcare. One is tied to employment, the other is tied to citizenship. My vote is government.

[kwk285]

I did not refer to Canada as anything other than a civilized nation. Bottom line, you have to depend on someone for access to health care. It can be a corporation that will provide benefits, or the government that provides healthcare. One is tied to employment, the other is tied to citizenship. My vote is government.

I will never vote for govenment on this issue. When My Mother was diagnosed with cancer. She found that half of the people waiting for chemo were from Canada. They had the choice of coming to the US for treatment or waiting 6 months before they could get treatment up there.

When you have the government involved with healthcare, all you have is a large HMO. As we all know HMOs are known for at best marginal care.

We already have a third rail in politics in social security. Another money sucking entitlement, like government run healthcare will only bankrupt us sooner.

[BMWRider]

In the end, my two priorities are health care and education. I simply do not believe that the current health care policies are sustainable. Beyond all of the fears and moaning about Canada and every other civilized nation that has socialized medicine, I do believe this is the direction that we will need to go in if we are going to continue to be a valid world power. Currently, the only leader with a healthcare plan is Obama, so he is possibly my choice.

Having been a victim of government run health care, I can only say that every single person who wants it, should have to use it. I want every idiotic Congressman, Senator, and Presidential candidate that advocates for social medicine to exclusively use VA hospitals, incognito, for the rest of their lives. The best thing we could do for health care is get rid of that ignorant managed health care law that the Congress and President foisted on us that jacked up the cost of medicine. I know Americans are too lazy to do the research on why our system is broken, but I can guarantee you government will only break the system more than it has. Socialism is never the answer.

[Bowcephalus]

Cut out the middle men in healthcare, do not add to them.......

[AaronX]

Why do people think government is going to Fix health care? Since when has government involvement in anything fixed it? It's not like you can't go into a hospital now and get treated... in fact they have to treat you regardless of if you have insurance or the ability to repay. So why is it we need socialized medicine?

[Bowcephalus]

We're trying to catch up with China, Canada, Cuba, France....You know, be on the cutting edge.....

[BMWRider]

No president has a magic wand to change worldwide demand for oil, and the dollar won't be recovering as long as we are borrowing hundreds of billions for Republican deficit spending (whatever happened to the party of fiscal responsibility?), particularly the war in Iraq.

Does the Democratic deficit spending rate differently? Look both political parties have violated the social contract they have with their voters. Instead of taking a partisan tack with this, let's look at it honestly.

If you want to return the budget of the United States to the level it was 15 years ago you only have to do one thing, withdraw American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen from the 130 countries in which they are currently deployed. Close the bases, and have a true defensive posture. No meals on wheels, no spreading democracy, no saving oppressed Fenwickians with our military. Not only will this save us a tremendous amount of money, it will increase our prestige around the planet. Neither party has been responsible with our military in the past, and it is time we the people demand that they use the military as Constitutionally called for. If there is no act of war, Johnny stays home with his wife and kids.

Now we have halved spending. Let's go further.

End all foreign aid. Most of it ends up in the hands of tyrants anyway, or it creates nations who only look at us with their hands out. We are providing aid not only to developing countries, but to developed nations like Japan and Germany, the number two and three economies in the world.

Third, end all corporate welfare. Not incentives, not even protections, I mean American taxpayer dollars that go to companies like ADM so they can stick it to us for ethanol.

We have to allow young people, rich people, and financially savvy people to opt out of Social Security. Even if their employer must still contribute their half (your boss matches your contribution to FICA) to the system, people need to get off of it before the $50 Trillion dollar turd hits America in the face. I am not for starving old people, or poor people, I am talking about maintaining what we have for those who need it, but weaning most of us off of the government teat. We must be held responsible for our own retirement.

We need tax incentives for those who want their homes to be independent from the power grid. If I buy $25,000 worth of solar shingles, inverters, and batteries, I can give the grid more power than I use in a year. If all home owners could do this, our nation would no longer be held hostage by tyrants who happen to live above oil. It is time we provided Americans incentives (again not welfare, but tax breaks) to use the free market to remedy our energy problems.

NAFTA and all the other asinine trade "agreements" that were supported by both Dems and Reps have to go. While I believe firmly in free trade with all, and alliances with none, these agreements have not allowed our industry to trade on a level playing field. Right now, in Youngstown, Ohio there are steel mills that produce cheaper and better steel than any other mills in the world. Protectionism (endorsed by both the Reps and the Dems) means most of the finest steel in the world is not sold to Canada or Mexico because they are allowed to place tariffs on it. Hardly a true free trade agreement. Besides, NAFTA was never approved by 2/3s of Congress as all treaties are required to be, consequently it is unconstitutional.

The sugar lobby (and every other industrial lobby that is greasing the hands of our "leaders") must be told to put up or shut up. If Haitian sugar is cheaper, I should have the option to buy it. Plus sugar makes great ethanol.

Our money must become sound again. Silver standard, gold standard, oil standard, Cheerios standard, I do not care, but it needs something backing it. Government should not be allowed to turn the American dollar into monopoly money.

Both parties in this country are equally responsible for the mess we are in, and it is time that we the people demand Constitutional government. I know you all rejected Ron Paul, much to my disappointment, but we need to return to responsible government. The deficit belongs to both parties, both parties steal elections, both parties rape the people, both parties have had bad Presidents, both parties are only interested in keeping themselves in power and comfortable. Both parties gave us really crappy candidates.

It is time that all true patriots say enough and demand accountability from our elected dictators. I agree with my liberal friends on some issues, and my conservative friends on probably a few more issues, but I love my nation and want it to return to its glory, and I will vote for the Democrat or Republican, man or woman, black, white, red or yellow person, who will do the above. F political parties.

[Bowcephalus]

Try to keep up Jazz, the chick with the purse strings is Nancy.....You think the dude from Chicago is gonna whip her into line? LMAO.....

[mr_economy]

Why do people think government is going to Fix health care? Since when has government involvement in anything fixed it? It's not like you can't go into a hospital now and get treated... in fact they have to treat you regardless of if you have insurance or the ability to repay. So why is it we need socialized medicine?

I'm sure the law requiring hospitals to treat is very comforting to the uninsured person left with a $64,000 bill after his mandatory treatment is completed. Credit meltdown and vicious cycle of debt, anyone?

As for the "since when has government involvement worked?" bit, have you taken a look at the World Health Organization rankings of countries' healthcare systems lately? I'll give you a hint: all of the top-ranked countries have universal healthcare implemented through the government.

[mr_economy]

Besides, NAFTA was never approved by 2/3s of Congress as all treaties are required to be, consequently it is unconstitutional.

I'm not particularly interested in addressing the other claims, because they are opinion-based, and I try to limit my involvement in those to a reasonable degree (not enough time in the day for all the Internet arguments I'd love to have :tongue: ), but this one is a factual error worth addressing.

NAFTA is not a treaty, but rather an Executive Agreement. Such agreements require a simple majority approval of both houses of Congress (if any approval at all, since a purely executive agreement involves only the executive branch). The Supreme Court has generally declared such agreements constitutionally sound, and refuses to rule on squabbling between the Executive and Legislative branches, recusing itself on the grounds that such disagreements are "political questions" which must be resolved by the other two branches.

[kwk285]

I'm sure the law requiring hospitals to treat is very comforting to the uninsured person left with a $64,000 bill after his mandatory treatment is completed. Credit meltdown and vicious cycle of debt, anyone?

As for the "since when has government involvement worked?" bit, have you taken a look at the World Health Organization rankings of countries' healthcare systems lately? I'll give you a hint: all of the top-ranked countries have universal healthcare implemented through the government.

Do you mean the WHO that is that lapdog of the UN?

[soapbox]

Do you mean the WHO that is that lapdog of the UN?

Are the UN's/WHO's measures of healthcare effectiveness somehow skewed to make universal healthcare look more appetizing than private healthcare?

Jesse

[BMWRider]

NAFTA is not a treaty, but rather an Executive Agreement. Such agreements require a simple majority approval of both houses of Congress (if any approval at all, since a purely executive agreement involves only the executive branch). The Supreme Court has generally declared such agreements constitutionally sound, and refuses to rule on squabbling between the Executive and Legislative branches, recusing itself on the grounds that such disagreements are "political questions" which must be resolved by the other two branches.

The Executive Branch gets its authority to do this from exactly what part of the Constitution? It does not. We choose as a people to ignore another abuse by the Executive Branch of this country with the tacit agreement of a Legislative Branch that does not execute the will of the people. Any "agreement" with another nation is a treaty. Twist the meaning any way you want, but that is the definition of a treaty. Here it is from dictionary.com, "a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.

Maybe we are getting the government we deserve.

[jazzman]

Try to keep up Jazz, the chick with the purse strings is Nancy.....You think the dude from Chicago is gonna whip her into line? LMAO.....

Aside from the interesting San Francisco imagery (did you see that great bit on SNL about Pelosi?), you raise a great point. Democrats are terrible at restraining themselves when they have Congress and the White House. It even scares me. A Democratic president will have a tough time refusing to give in to every crazy spending scheme the Hill sends up. Sort of like Bush II caving in to all kinds of tax breaks and corporate welfare. That's why some (most?) voters prefer gridlock.

[mr_economy]

The Executive Branch gets its authority to do this from exactly what part of the Constitution? It does not. We choose as a people to ignore another abuse by the Executive Branch of this country with the tacit agreement of a Legislative Branch that does not execute the will of the people. Any "agreement" with another nation is a treaty. Twist the meaning any way you want, but that is the definition of a treaty. Here it is from dictionary.com, "a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.

Maybe we are getting the government we deserve.

Law doesn't abide by dictionary.com. In fact, if you want a truly fun exercise in futility, search for any random word in Black's Law Dictionary and you'll discover why such a massive dictionary is the biggest necessity for lawyers.

Executive Agreements, both of the purely Executive and the joint-Congress varieties, have been upheld by the Supreme Court which, like it or not, gets the final say on interpreting the Constitution. I happen to like Cornell University's coverage of constitutionality issues, and they have a fairly thorough examination of the (legal) difference between agreements and treaties: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag21_user.html

[kwk285]

Are the UN's/WHO's measures of healthcare effectiveness somehow skewed to make universal healthcare look more appetizing than private healthcare?

Jesse

Sine I consider the UN to be one of the most corrupt , inefficient, unneeded organiztions in the world, I would question anything that they report.

[BMWRider]

Law doesn't abide by dictionary.com. In fact, if you want a truly fun exercise in futility, search for any random word in Black's Law Dictionary and you'll discover why such a massive dictionary is the biggest necessity for lawyers.

Executive Agreements, both of the purely Executive and the joint-Congress varieties, have been upheld by the Supreme Court which, like it or not, gets the final say on interpreting the Constitution. I happen to like Cornell University's coverage of constitutionality issues, and they have a fairly thorough examination of the (legal) difference between agreements and treaties: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag21_user.html

Anyone who wants to know why this country is screwed up read the above. Your response is woefully ignorant of the historical purpose of the Constitution. I do not give a dang what a legal dictionary says and neither would the authors of the document itself. The Constitution, the ultimate law of the land was not written for lawyers or by lawyers, and your interpretation of NAFTA would not have flown as recently as 40 years ago. This is another example of the imperial Executive Branch and the "bending" of laws that occurs on both sides. Tell you what, go to that previously mentioned steel mill in Youngstown, and you tell them NAFTA isn't a treaty, and that they are out of a job because Black's Law Dictionary says that a commerce treaty between countries is just an agreement. Seriously, this is why the first act of any revolutionary group is to kill the lawyers.

[soapbox]

Democrats are terrible at restraining themselves when they have Congress and the White House. It even scares me. A Democratic president will have a tough time refusing to give in to every crazy spending scheme the Hill sends up. Sort of like Bush II caving in to all kinds of tax breaks and corporate welfare. That's why some (most?) voters prefer gridlock.

I used to vote Republican because this is true, to my thinking, and I expect it will remain true. But we're spending $3 billion a month in Iraq, and that money is all coming from lending institutions overseas, notably the Chinese banks who have lots of dollars because we buy so much stuff from the Chinese manufacturers. And when we start doing things the Chinese really oppose, they'll stop loaning us money, or start calling in the loans. And then, we can't do anything we want; we'll actually be beholden to the Chinese.

Deficit spending is evil, and we just pass on the debt to our kids. And neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will admit it, or do anything about it. I don't think the Libertarians could change a thing either: "take away my Social Security, and you'll be voted out of office." Poof.

Jesus, I need a drink.

[BMWRider]

Deficit spending is evil, and we just pass on the debt to our kids. And neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will admit it, or do anything about it. I don't think the Libertarians could change a thing either: "take away my Social Security, and you'll be voted out of office." Poof.

Jesus, I need a drink.

I love your thinking, and enjoy your posts, but have to ask, why on earth are you moving to DC? That place (it is my hometown I can say it) is a cesspool.

[soapbox]

I love your thinking, and enjoy your posts, but have to ask, why on earth are you moving to DC? That place (it is my hometown I can say it) is a cesspool.

You're very kind, and I'm learning from and enjoying your posts as well. I'm glad that, for the most part, this thread (and the gasoline thread) haven't sunk into a flame war, and for that I'm grateful. The free exchange of ideas in respectful environment is a great blessing of liberty.

I'm moving to DC because my wife has a great and prestigious opportunity to study the interaction of the Supreme Court and Congress. She's working on her PhD in Political Science and the American Political Science Association (our big academic organization) is giving her a very good stipend to conduct her research. I just finished my PhD (but I'm employed in IT) and I don't want her to pass up this opportunity.

I can find a job (though I'm going to start a forum thread asking where we should live, with a newborn), and I might even get a raise. But DC might or might not be permanent. Her appointment is a one-year deal, and after that... who knows?

It will be interesting to watch Decision 2008 from the belly of the beltway beast, that's for sure. Might be depressing no matter what happens, but them's the breaks.

Jesse

[Dr. Mike]

I'm sure the law requiring hospitals to treat is very comforting to the uninsured person left with a $64,000 bill after his mandatory treatment is completed. Credit meltdown and vicious cycle of debt, anyone?

As for the "since when has government involvement worked?" bit, have you taken a look at the World Health Organization rankings of countries' healthcare systems lately? I'll give you a hint: all of the top-ranked countries have universal healthcare implemented through the government.

I just did. Here they are:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America


Let me ask you this. Do you agree? If you are deathly ill, would you rather go to Morocco for healthcare? Or Oman? Or Andorra? I have no doubt that Andorra has great healthcare - what do they have, like 5 people?

I really do have to laugh at all of this. I see Germany and Switzerland higher than us. I lived in those countries for a couple of years. I had a friend there who suffered from horrible back pains. He visited doctors in both countries, and nobody could help him. The greatest was the one doctor who suggested the solution to his back pain was to walk like an ape, because it was well known that apes don't have back problems. Eventually it got bad enough that he went back to the U.S. His back problems were resolved within a couple of weeks. Sorry, I'll take our 37th ranked healthcare system over all 36 of the others combined. I have a very strong suspicion that you would too. Maybe some of those countries have "free" healthcare (translation: those who work have to pay for those who don't), but TANSTAAFL. You get what you pay for.

[MTgrayling]

If you are deathly ill, would you rather go to Morocco for healthcare? Or Oman? Or Andorra?

A fair(er) question would be if you are deathly ill and poor...

[Dr. Mike]

A fair(er) question would be if you are deathly ill and poor...

Why, then I would walk into any emergency room in this great nation of ours, and they would treat me, as the law requires. Are you saying that you would opt for Morocco?

Honestly, anybody out there willing to honestly say that they want to go to one of these other countries for health care? I mean hand on heart honestly, not just saying it to defend the WHO assessment. Here is a better question. Take any random person, anywhere in the world. Tell them that they are dying of some dreadful disease, and can choose to go to either the United States of America to be treated, or to France, the nation that received the top rating from the WHO. I'd lay money down that they pick the USA.

I'm not so impressed with the WHO as of late, in light of the recent revelation that they greatly exaggerated to global threat of HIV, to the point that more money was spent combating it than was necessary, diverting it away from other critical areas - diarrheal diseases kill more people by far each year than HIV. The WHO is one of those organiztions that may have started out with legitimate goals, but has since been turned into a political bureaucracy that works harder pushing political agendas than actual worldwide health.

[MTgrayling]

Why, then I would walk into any emergency room in this great nation of ours, and they would treat me, as the law requires. Are you saying that you would opt for Morocco?


Umm yah, no doubt. I don't have $50,000.00 lying about.

[jazzman]

Why, then I would walk into any emergency room in this great nation of ours, and they would treat me, as the law requires.

That's what's happening now. Everyone who pays for health insurance, and everyone who pays taxes, pays for that ER visit, and it's the most expensive way to provide health care to that poor person. I'd like to find a better way, without jeopardizing my own high-quality health care. Anyone have the answer to both concerns?

[BMWRider]

That's what's happening now. Everyone who pays for health insurance, and everyone who pays taxes, pays for that ER visit, and it's the most expensive way to provide health care to that poor person. I'd like to find a better way, without jeopardizing my own high-quality health care. Anyone have the answer to both concerns?

There is an answer, but nobody will like it. First, this was not an issue prior to the government's meddling. They passed a managed health care bill that raised prices, put a non-medical middleman in charge of your health care, and forced insurance to cover non-catastrophic health visits. Our costs have skyrocketed since then.

Insurance needs to return to its intended purpose, covering those extremely expensive things that people cannot afford out of pocket. We don't claim the replacement of windshield wipers on our auto insurance, why do we do the equivalent with health insurance. There must be comprehensive tort reform. Yes bad doctors should get punished, but nobody should collect millions for the course of nature. Fact is, we all die. Government requirements for managed health care must go away. Every American should have a Medical Savings Account. Anyone in this country illegally, should do so at their own risk, no legal ID card, no medical care unless you have cold, hard, cash. Finally, the medical industry should be provided incentives to treat the uninsured.

[urr-lord]

obama--5th gear turbo drive to hell.(a socialist hack)
mccain-3rd gear drive to hell.(co-writer of the incumbent protection act)
as you can tell i don't like either one and i don't think any third party will get enough votes to win.so i guess i'll take dramamine and hold my nose and vote for whoever i feel will cause the least damage to our country.i'll probably then return home and drink adult beverages heavily until the self-loathing and disgust for what i've done passes.

[Mysterion]

...why on earth are you moving to DC? That place (it is my hometown I can say it) is a cesspool.
I stay out of these threads because I like to keep my blood pressure low. (Call me a Socialist..I'll be flattered!)

However...

DC may be your hometown, but it's my home, and has been for over 30 years. You were born here, but I (along with half-a-million others,) choose to live here. You may not want to live here, you may not personally relate to any of the reasoning that would lead a person to live here, but I'd think B &B decorum would mitigate against calling other folks' home "a cesspool." I could probably muster a few unflattering names to fling at The Commonwealth of Virginia, but that would be rude at best, wouldn't it?

Please play nice.

(And Soapbox, please feel free to pick my brains about prospective neighborhoods--or anything else--before your move here. I can give you a crash course in DC-ism.)

[Dr. Mike]

In reading more about the WHO rankings, there are some interesting things to note.

The grading of a country's health care system is not based on a common standard, rather it is a subjective assessment, and often, it is not based on complete information. Where complete information is lacking, statistics were extrapolated from neighboring countries. Furthermore, a higher ranking does not mean better health care - it looks more at life expectancy related to amount of spending per person on health care, level of government involvement in health care, etc. For example, it was noted that while Oman ranked higher than the UK, Oman is only now starting to achieve the level of health care quality that the UK achieved 20 years ago. A sudden rapid change in life expectancy or decrease in infant mortality, not the actual number, gets a higher ranking. Thus, if a country increases its life expectancy by 25%, that will give a higher score than a country that has only increased life expectancy by 2%. The problem is, many nations like the UK, Canada, and the U.S., have very high life expectancy, and any significant infusion of money at this point is not going to result in a very significant increase in that figure. However, this will handicap them against a third world country that has gone from dead last in life expectancy to the 50th percentile. But where would you rather live? Some countries can dramatically reduce mortality simply by implementing more vigorous vaccination campaigns. The U.S. has already done this. Oman, which ranks higher than us, has an infant mortality rate of 18 per 1000. The U.S. rate is 5 per 1000. The life expectancy for Americans is 77.8 years. For Oman, it is 73.91. According to a 2007 report by the CDC, the U.S. spends more on health per capita than any other country, and that spending continues to increase.

Before we also start taking more money from people to pay for the health insurance of others, consider this as well: according to that same CDC report, 40% of the uninsured in this country are at at least 200% of the poverty level (for a family of 4, this would be ~$40,000/year). 15% of the uninsured are at at least 400% of the poverty level ($80,000/year and above).

[soapbox]

(And Soapbox, please feel free to pick my brains about prospective neighborhoods--or anything else--before your move here. I can give you a crash course in DC-ism.)

Thanks! New thread is here (http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php?p=626284#post626284).

[ScottS]

I had a friend there who suffered from horrible back pains. He visited doctors in both countries, and nobody could help him. The greatest was the one doctor who suggested the solution to his back pain was to walk like an ape, because it was well known that apes don't have back problems. Eventually it got bad enough that he went back to the U.S. His back problems were resolved within a couple of weeks.

Mike, you should know much better than to cite one anecdotal case and make believe that it has any bearing on Public Health.

[BMWRider]

Please play nice.

I have thought of 100 retorts but will leave this lie. I am glad you like the District, as for my residence in the Commonwealth, sling away, we have serious problems here too.

[Mysterion]

I have thought of 100 retorts but will leave this lie. I am glad you like the District, as for my residence in the Commonwealth, sling away, we have serious problems here too.
Thanks for your restraint, and your thoughtful PM.

[BMWRider]

Thanks for your restraint, and your thoughtful PM.

Its all good. :001_smile Thank you as well.

[soapbox]

In reading more about the WHO rankings, there are some interesting things to note.


Thanks for having a look into this, Dr. Mike. Here's what I found, from this report that was issued in 2000 (http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html).



It compares each country’s system to what the experts estimate to be the upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country. It also measures what each country’s system has accomplished in comparison with those of other countries.


In this way, it appears that the WHO was attempting to measure the actual performance versus a country's capacity for performance. Subjective, yes. But given the US's awesome income and infrastructure, maybe we deserve to be ranked 37th?



WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).


Actually, this doesn't seem unreasonable. There will always be subjectiveness in data reporting, and missing data in the poorest of countries. But the rankings of these countries probably wouldn't change much, even with better data reporting.

[kwk285]

When one looks at the biggest drains on our medical resources you see heart issues, stroke, and diabetes.

These are all diseases that a person can treat with proper diet, exercise and if needed daily medications for hypertention, cholesterol, or diabetes. If a patient did that, they would use dramatically fewer medical resources over time.

In a recent gallup poll, several things were found. Patients admitted that at the end of one month they are only taking their once a day medications 25% of the time. If the medication needs to be taken more than once a day, it is almost guaranteed that a patient won't be taking their medication properly. The main reason these people gave is that taking a medication once a day just wasn't convenient.

As these people get older, these are the ones that are more likely to be a drain on our resources.

Sure there are people that have accidents that can cause huge medical bill but most of the money is spent on the people that have chosen to live their lives in a manor contrary to a healthy lifestyle.

[DirtyDave]

As is usual, I am coming in here way late and the opinion I am about to write probably should be have posted at the beginning, so...

My opinion is I want what the Russians have, a None-of-the-Above choice. This is a contest between two dreary choices.

McCain to me just always looks tired and bit befuddled and has seemingly no skill at saying precisely what he means, as with his recent statements on Iraq and the US presence there. And don't get me started on his blithering about oil and what to do about the current energy problems. Foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution, indeed!

Obama, despite his educational pedigree, is increasing looking like a snobbish light weight who seems to have no clue about anything much beyond getting a great deal on a fine house from soon to be felon. That's not good. As President, he could make the feckless Carter look brilliant and dramatic.

Since I don't have the None-of-the-Above choice, this will be a vote for whom I am against and that is Obama. Good Lord, November cannot get here soon enough.

[Bowcephalus]

Jazz.....Point well taken.Missed the Pelosi bit.I'll have to catch that one in reruns. Political comedy made SNL.

[cl00bie]

[quote=ScottS;624112]Now you've done it!!

My word, it's Pelosi's Congress!!!

[cl00bie]

Not to mention the obvious inconsistency with the usual Republican sentiment towards federalism.

Kind of like the the Democrat "states rights" inconsistency with regards to the federal marriage amendment.

[cl00bie]

Does the Democratic deficit spending rate differently? Look both political parties have violated the social contract they have with their voters. Instead of taking a partisan tack with this, let's look at it honestly.

If you want to return the budget of the United States to the level it was 15 years ago you only have to do one thing, withdraw American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen from the 130 countries in which they are currently deployed. Close the bases, and have a true defensive posture. No meals on wheels, no spreading democracy, no saving oppressed Fenwickians with our military. Not only will this save us a tremendous amount of money, it will increase our prestige around the planet. Neither party has been responsible with our military in the past, and it is time we the people demand that they use the military as Constitutionally called for. If there is no act of war, Johnny stays home with his wife and kids.

Now we have halved spending. Let's go further.

End all foreign aid. Most of it ends up in the hands of tyrants anyway, or it creates nations who only look at us with their hands out. We are providing aid not only to developing countries, but to developed nations like Japan and Germany, the number two and three economies in the world.

Third, end all corporate welfare. Not incentives, not even protections, I mean American taxpayer dollars that go to companies like ADM so they can stick it to us for ethanol.

We have to allow young people, rich people, and financially savvy people to opt out of Social Security. Even if their employer must still contribute their half (your boss matches your contribution to FICA) to the system, people need to get off of it before the $50 Trillion dollar turd hits America in the face. I am not for starving old people, or poor people, I am talking about maintaining what we have for those who need it, but weaning most of us off of the government teat. We must be held responsible for our own retirement.

We need tax incentives for those who want their homes to be independent from the power grid. If I buy $25,000 worth of solar shingles, inverters, and batteries, I can give the grid more power than I use in a year. If all home owners could do this, our nation would no longer be held hostage by tyrants who happen to live above oil. It is time we provided Americans incentives (again not welfare, but tax breaks) to use the free market to remedy our energy problems.

NAFTA and all the other asinine trade "agreements" that were supported by both Dems and Reps have to go. While I believe firmly in free trade with all, and alliances with none, these agreements have not allowed our industry to trade on a level playing field. Right now, in Youngstown, Ohio there are steel mills that produce cheaper and better steel than any other mills in the world. Protectionism (endorsed by both the Reps and the Dems) means most of the finest steel in the world is not sold to Canada or Mexico because they are allowed to place tariffs on it. Hardly a true free trade agreement. Besides, NAFTA was never approved by 2/3s of Congress as all treaties are required to be, consequently it is unconstitutional.

The sugar lobby (and every other industrial lobby that is greasing the hands of our "leaders") must be told to put up or shut up. If Haitian sugar is cheaper, I should have the option to buy it. Plus sugar makes great ethanol.

Our money must become sound again. Silver standard, gold standard, oil standard, Cheerios standard, I do not care, but it needs something backing it. Government should not be allowed to turn the American dollar into monopoly money.

Both parties in this country are equally responsible for the mess we are in, and it is time that we the people demand Constitutional government. I know you all rejected Ron Paul, much to my disappointment, but we need to return to responsible government. The deficit belongs to both parties, both parties steal elections, both parties rape the people, both parties have had bad Presidents, both parties are only interested in keeping themselves in power and comfortable. Both parties gave us really crappy candidates.

It is time that all true patriots say enough and demand accountability from our elected dictators. I agree with my liberal friends on some issues, and my conservative friends on probably a few more issues, but I love my nation and want it to return to its glory, and I will vote for the Democrat or Republican, man or woman, black, white, red or yellow person, who will do the above. F political parties.

If you advocate going back on the gold standard for our currency and refusing to pay foreign debts with our gold, then you have my vote. :001_smile

BMWRider for President '08

[BMWRider]

BMWRider for President '08

:lol::lol::lol: Too much baggage here, and I tell people what I think. I would do worse than Mike Gravel (who I liked). I could see the interviews my ex-wife would give right now. :w00t:

[cl00bie]

A fair(er) question would be if you are deathly ill and poor...

Then you will die while you wait for health care. In Canada there's a three month wait for chemo. If you have an aggressive form of cancer, that is a death sentence.

[kongjie]

Then you will die while you wait for health care. In Canada there's a three month wait for chemo.

Really. In which provinces? Or is it national policy and it is across the board?

[cl00bie]

Really. In which provinces? Or is it national policy and it is across the board?

I don't think it's national policy, it's simply supply and demand. Demand is outstripping the supply.

[kongjie]

I don't think it's national policy, it's simply supply and demand. Demand is outstripping the supply.

I chose a province at random--BC coz I like the scenery--and found this information on the government web site. I don't doubt that there is other information more critical of the performance of BC health services but this picture is nowhere near what you've said above:

"Cancer Services

The B.C. Cancer Agency provides radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatment at four major clinics across the province — in Victoria, Vancouver, Surrey and Kelowna.

Radiotherapy

In 2006/07, 96.5 percent of British Columbians requiring radiotherapy started treatment within four weeks of being medically able to receive it.

Procedure: Radiotherapy
Patients Waiting as of Feb 29/08: 246
Median Wait Time from Apr 1/07 to Feb 29/08: 7 days
1.0 weeks
Treatments (courses) for the 3 months ending Feb 29/08: 2,713

Chemotherapy

There is no significant wait for British Columbians who need chemotherapy, which accounts for half of all cancer care provided by the agency. The standard for chemotherapy wait times of two weeks is met in almost every case. In rare cases when it is not met, there is a medical reason.

Outcomes
B.C. has better survival outcomes for cancer treatment than any other Canadian province. This is partly due to cancer services being coordinated and delivered by a central agency.

For example, outcomes show a lower recurrence rate of early stage lymphoma, or primary cancer of the lymph glands. Although it is about 22 percent worldwide, in B.C. the recurrence rate is only one percent."

[fuzz2050]

Kind of like the the Democrat "states rights" inconsistency with regards to the federal marriage amendment.

I suppose even democrats must be able to flip flop enough to make exceptions for those pesky human rights.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Then you will die while you wait for health care. In Canada there's a three month wait for chemo. If you have an aggressive form of cancer, that is a death sentence.

Hmmmm... If cancer patients all over the country were dropping dead because of wait times you would think that it would be all over the news.

[ScottS]

Then you will die while you wait for health care. In Canada there's a three month wait for chemo. If you have an aggressive form of cancer, that is a death sentence.

You might want to put a slightly higher filter on believing what you read.

[cl00bie]

I suppose even democrats must be able to flip flop enough to make exceptions for those pesky human rights.

From where do those human rights originate?