Who will you Vote for 2008

bellaconnie80

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shimmer
I'll vote for someone I wouldn't trust to watch my children, wouldn't invite to my dinner table, and wouldn't spend a day walking through the zoo with.
I'll vote for someone who would rub me personally the wrong way, irritate me, and generally cause me negative emotion.
I'll vote for someone who wouldn't be invited to a family cookout, trusted with my wallet, or asked to dog sit while I went out of town.

Why will I vote for that person? Because those are the options we're presented with.


true.gif
true.gif
true.gif
true.gif
true.gif
true.gif
true.gif
true.gif
:t rue:
true.gif
true.gif
 

ratmist

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by zabbazooey
Voting for John McCain. I hate the idea of socialized medicine.

I'm not being mean or bitchy this time - I swear - but I really don't understand this.

Most people, at some point in their life, will not be able to meet the cost of their medical care or the medical care of someone they love. We're all living longer and it's said that eventually, the new "parenting" burden that our society will have to meet is the cost of caring for geriatric family members, to say nothing of those of us that will need treatment for long-term illnesses like cancer.

So why not (for example) have everyone pay a small amount every month towards the cost of medical care as part of their taxes so that everyone gets covered when the time of need comes?

I don't buy the argument that America can't put together a viable nation-wide health service that can cover every American. I was taught that if you wanted anything bad enough in America, you could make it happen there.
 

zabbazooey

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratmist
I'm not being mean or bitchy this time - I swear - but I really don't understand this.

Most people, at some point in their life, will not be able to meet the cost of their medical care or the medical care of someone they love. We're all living longer and it's said that eventually, the new "parenting" burden that our society will have to meet is the cost of caring for geriatric family members, to say nothing of those of us that will need treatment for long-term illnesses like cancer.

So why not (for example) have everyone pay a small amount every month towards the cost of medical care as part of their taxes so that everyone gets covered when the time of need comes?

I don't buy the argument that America can't put together a viable nation-wide health service that can cover every American. I was taught that if you wanted anything bad enough in America, you could make it happen there.


If you want something fucked up, give it to the government. We were so effective at helping the people affected by Hurricane Katrina, so let's put the health and well-being of all of its citizens in its hands.
 

florabundance

Well-known member
I'm not American, nor do I necessarily understand politics let alone American politics, but I read a very interesting article about McCain in a supplement that comes with our sunday paper, The Observer.

I thought it would be interesting to post what I read here, as the article struck a chord - quite long but very informative, if not a little shocking
:

"It is a vintage John McCain performance. Standing in a light-filled atrium at the University of Denver, McCain is espousing his vision for America's future relations with the world. He hits all the right notes, citing liberal icon John F Kennedy and conservative hero Ronald Reagan. He strikes a muscular tone against America's enemies, yet tempers it with restraint. He speaks of a 'common vision' among nations. 'I want us to rise to the challenges of our time, as generations before us rose to theirs,' he says. He addresses the audience as 'my friends' and promises a safer, more reasonable world. 'It still remains within our power to make in our time another, better world than we inherited,' he concludes. As the crowd applaud, McCain plunges into the throng to pump hands and sign autographs.

Welcome to the John McCain show 2008. It's powerful stuff, portraying McCain as the decent patriot of the middle ground and a steady hand for difficult times. For a lot of Americans - including many Democrats - it is a beguiling vision. They see a war hero whose courage was forged in a North Vietnamese POW camp. They see a maverick who spoke against the tortures of Abu Ghraib. They see a reformer who acts against lobbyists and political favours. They see a politician who has spent a lifetime serving his country and won a place in the hearts of the nation.

Now McCain is also trying to win the White House. He has taken his campaign to places far from the projected Republican road map to victory. He has spoken in the 'black belt' of rural Alabama. He has toured Appalachian coal country to talk about poverty. He has gone to the hippy enclave of Oregon to lecture on global warming. In short, he is a Republican that even liberals can love. And many do. McCain's appeal to America's vital middle ground could easily propel him to the Oval Office.

But there is another, very different side to John McCain. Away from the headlines and the stirring speeches, a less familiar figure lurks. It is a McCain who plans to fight on in Iraq for years to come and who might launch military action against Iran. This is the McCain whose campaign and career has been riddled with lobbyists and special interests. It is a McCain who has sided with religious and political extremists who believe Islam is evil and gays are immoral. It is a McCain who wants to appoint extreme conservatives to the Supreme Court and see abortion banned. This McCain has a notoriously volatile temper that has scared some senior members of his own party. If McCain becomes the most powerful man in the world it would be wise to know what lies behind his public mask, to look at the dark side of John McCain.

John McCain is an American hero in an age of war and terrorism. As young Americans return in bodybags from Iraq and Iranian mullahs cook up uranium, an old soldier like McCain seems a natural choice in a dangerous world. He is the son and grandson of warriors. Both his father and grandfather were four-star admirals. He was even born on a military base, on 29 August 1936, in Panama. And his life story reads like a movie script. The young, rascally McCain, nicknamed 'McNasty' by his classmates, attended the elite West Point military academy. He became a navy pilot, long before Tom Cruise made 'Top Guns' famous, and began his first combat duty in Vietnam in 1966, carrying out countless missions. Then came disaster. He was shot down and held prisoner for five years by brutal North Vietnamese captors. In his stiff gait and damaged arms, he still bears the scars of their tortures. His CV for the White House is written in his suffering as much as in his career as a senator.

That military legacy has made John McCain a legend. But it has not turned him into a peacemaker, at a time when most Americans desperately want the war to end. Anyone hoping for a new president who will quickly bring America's troops home from Iraq had better look elsewhere. McCain has always supported the invasion of Iraq and he wants to support it until at least 2013, or perhaps for many years beyond. He believes withdrawal would be a surrender to terrorists.

That warlike spirit was on full display in Denver when McCain's speech was interrupted repeatedly by anti-war protesters. They stood up, unfurling banners and shouting for a withdrawal from Iraq. When it happened a third time, McCain had had enough. In a voice suddenly filled with steely resolve, McCain broke from his carefully scripted speech and gripped the lectern. He looked out at the audience and spoke slowly. 'I will never surrender in Iraq,' he rasped. 'Our American troops will come home with victory and with honour.' The crowd cheered and chanted: 'John McCain! John McCain!' It was a perfect moment for unrepentant supporters of the Iraq invasion and a McCain who still smarts from defeat in Vietnam. No retreat. No surrender. This time America will win.

McCain believes in projecting American military power abroad. So it is no wonder that the neoconservatives who pushed for war in Iraq have now regrouped around him. McCain's main foreign policy adviser is Randy Scheunemann, who was executive director of the shadowy Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Other leading neocons on board include John Bolton, America's belligerent former UN ambassador, Bill Kristol, editor of the Neocon bible the Weekly Standard, and Max Boot, who has pushed for a US version of the old British Colonial Office. Another close McCain adviser is former CIA director James Woolsey, who has openly advocated bombing Syria.
Such a group of warlike counsellors has raised fears that McCain may strike Iran to stop its suspected quest for a nuclear weapon, triggering a fresh war in the Middle East. The Republican candidate has openly joked about bombing Tehran. It was just over a year ago, in the tiny borough of Murrells Inlet in South Carolina, and McCain faced a small crowd in one of his characteristic town hall meetings. As McCain stood on the stage, one man asked him about the 'real problem' in the Middle East. 'When are we going to send an airmail message to Tehran?' the man pleaded. McCain laughed and - to the tune of the Beach Boys' classic 'Barbara Ann' - began to sing: 'Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.' But some think McCain's joke may well become policy. 'I think a McCain presidency would be very likely to strike Iran,' says Cliff Schecter, author of a new book, The Real McCain, McCain is still most at home with soldiers. Earlier this year I watched him on the stump in Charleston, South Carolina. He chose to speak at the Citadel, an elite military college, where old tanks and retired rockets dotted the lawns and squads of young recruits jogged around its quads. At the small rally McCain was relaxed and at home and the crowd loved him: here was their war hero made flesh. Here was a man unafraid to strike first.

John McCain's second bid for the presidency has been a long time coming. After being beaten by Bush in 2000, the Senator from Arizona has returned to the fray more determined than ever. And central to his success has been his media strategy.

Three years ago I followed McCain to a fund-raising dinner in Hartford, Connecticut, a wealthy city of insurers and bankers. McCain spoke at a private club downtown, giving an early version of his stump speech and already being introduced as the next president of the United States. He gave an impromptu press conference, bantering gamely with reporters. When that was done, aides tried to drag him away, but McCain raced across the room and sought out a local reporter to clarify an answer he had given. The journalist, unused to such personal attention from a potential president, looked like a spellbound deer in the headlights as McCain spoke to him for a further 10 minutes. The fact is, McCain loves journalists and they love him back. That is how the myth of the moderate maverick - the most powerful tool in his political armoury - has come to be.

Nothing has changed since that moment in Hartford. McCain's campaign bus - dubbed the Straight Talk Express, just as it was in 2000 - is filled with journalists who travel at the back with McCain, relaxing on a U-shaped couch. McCain recently hosted a barbecue for journalists at his Arizona ranch. As TV anchors and newspaper reporters sipped beer and cocktails under a desert sun, McCain stood at the grill and literally served up their daily nourishment. He is someone you could have a beer with, in stark contrast to Barack Obama, who keeps his press entourage firmly at arm's length. Yet McCain's riskier strategy has worked like a dream. Reporters often overlook McCain's errors and flaps - especially in national security - clinging instead to the narrative of an unconventional patriot. 'The media love him, especially his war record. He is the GI Joe doll they played with as kids,' says Professor Shawn Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside.
There is also a little-reported back-up plan for reporters who do not toe the line: sheer aggression. A recent Washington Post piece on a land deal by one of McCain's allies prompted a brutal response from the McCain campaign. Without disproving facts, they labelled the story 'shameful' and a 'smear job'. When Newsweek ran a story on the Obama camp's perception of McCain's weak spots, McCain's team struck again. This time the story was 'offensive' and 'scurrilous'. The campaign is willing to strike out abroad, recently persuading one European newspaper editor to scrap a review of Schecter's book. For the fact is, McCain's benevolent public image is no accident. It has been carefully crafted and is forcefully policed. 'This has gone on for years. This is an image he has worked very hard to maintain,' says Professor Seth Masket of the University of Denver.

John McCain has not always had his own way. His current reformist image was born from a career-threatening scandal that almost saw his political ambitions strangled at birth. It was 1987, and John McCain was a promising newcomer in the Republican party, still finding his feet in a world very different from his military life. Charlie Keating, a wealthy businessman, was a long-time friend and financial contributor to McCain's campaigns. When Keating was caught up in the disastrous collapse of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, he turned to his political friends, asking them to talk to federal regulators. McCain, along with four others, made the mistake of doing just that. When a massive government bailout of Lincoln followed, so too did public outrage. It almost destroyed McCain's career. Yet the Keating Five scandal also gave birth to a new John McCain: the reformer. In an astonishing transformation he now became the arch-champion of campaign finance reform.

Yet much of the dark side of John McCain lies behind the closed doors of K Street, a Washington DC boulevard lined with glitzy buildings and home to the capital's booming lobbyist industry. A close examination of McCain's campaign workers, political allies and backers reveals a dense world of dubious loyalties, uber-lobbyists and powerful corporate interests. McCain is very much at home with K Street's sharp-suited denizens, their wealthy clients and their art of influence-peddling.

Take one of McCain's closest aides and senior counsel, Charlie Black. For decades he worked as one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington DC. His firm represented some of the most unpleasant dictators in modern history, among them the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos and Zaire's kleptomaniac president Joseph Mobutu. Then there's Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, the man leading the effort to capture the White House. Davis, too, has been a top lobbyist. His firm's clients ranged from Ukrainian billionaire Rinat Akhmetov to telecoms giants such as Comsat and Verizon.

But Black and Davis are far from alone. McCain's staff was so riddled with lobbyists that at least four have resigned because of their contacts and businesses. They included Doug Goodyear, McCain's convention chairman, whose company was paid to improve the image of Burma's brutal dictatorship.
The make-up of McCain's team has set alarm bells ringing among Washington's campaign watchdogs. 'We need to know who is advising the candidates and why,' says Josh Israel, a lobbyist investigator at the Centre for Public Integrity (CPI). 'Rather than advising them based on what is good for the candidate or the country, are they instead looking for their other interests?' McCain's campaign has even had to bring in special rules to cut down on the number of lobbyists on his team.

Nor is it just campaign workers who have extensive links to the lobbying industry. McCain's financial backers do, too. A recent survey of 106 elite fundraisers for McCain revealed that one in six were lobbyists. Watchdog groups such as the CPI believe McCain has a long history of helping people who also happen to be his wealthy backers, including several large landowners in Arizona, Nevada and California who have profited from McCain-linked property deals. 'McCain has a long way to go to line up his reformist image with the actual reality,' Israel says. Sceptics might conclude that McCain's post-Keating career represents a cosmetic makeover, not a true conversion.

John McCain is level with Barack Obama in the polls in a year when Democrats should be a certainty. He is even winning in key swing states like Florida. His appeal to America's middle ground remains strong. These are people like self-confessed moderate Keith Gregory, 24, who filed out of the Denver auditorium as a convert. The young student, dressed in a freshly pressed suit and tie, had been deeply impressed by McCain's speech. 'I like him more than before,' Gregory said. 'He talked very sensibly and openly about the issues.' This is McCain's great strength and also one of his greatest myths. Few see McCain as an ideological warrior in America's culture wars. Unlike Bush, he is not a born-again Christian. In McCain's inner circle - unlike Bush's - there are no group prayer meetings. Yet the reality is that McCain is a social conservative who has actively sought out the far right of his party and forged alliances with Christian extremists.

Just look at McCain's 'pastor problems'. He has enthusiastically sought the political blessing of some of the most conservative religious figures in the country. McCain gave the 2006 commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University, a college that has taught creationism alongside science. McCain also courted and won the endorsement of Texan preacher John Hagee, despite Hagee blaming Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans's liberal attitude towards gays. Hagee believes the disaster was God's judgement on the sinful city. Another McCain-backer, Ohio preacher Rod Parsley, has spouted hate about Muslims. Parsley, whom McCain called a 'spiritual guide', believes America was founded partly in order to destroy Islam. He has called Mohammed a 'mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil' and has supported prosecuting people who commit adultery. Though McCain later repudiated the endorsements of Parsley and Hagee, he did so only after bad headlines threatened his moderate image. Most of Hagee's and Parsley's views were widely known from public speeches or books. It was not their bigotry that caught the campaign out, it was the reporting of it. 'McCain has had links with these religious figures who are just way, way out of the mainstream,' says Cliff Schecter.

There are other nasties, too. McCain is friends with G Gordon Liddy, one of the Watergate burglars. Liddy, who once plotted to kill a left-wing journalist, has hosted a fundraiser with McCain in his own home. McCain also endorsed and campaigned for Alabama politician George Wallace Jr in 2005, despite Wallace's links to racist groups. Wallace has praised and spoken at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white-power group that opposes inter-racial marriage and promotes white racial purity. If a moderate voter were seeking to judge a politician by the company he keeps, then McCain keeps some very odd company indeed.

But it is not really that strange. McCain himself holds deeply conservative views, including proposing teaching the creationist idea of Intelligent Design in schools alongside evolution. McCain has also always been anti-abortion. He believes the landmark Roe vs Wade ruling that legalised abortion was a bad decision. McCain has vowed to continue the Bush policy of appointing extreme conservatives to the Supreme Court and many fear a McCain presidency will see Roe vs Wade overturned. 'McCain is neither moderate nor a maverick when it comes to a woman's right to choose. He's just plain wrong,' said Nancy Keenan, president of abortion rights group Naral.
On the environment, too, McCain is not the green warrior some might think. He has voted against tightening fuel efficiency standards for American cars. The League of Conservation Voters gives McCain an environmental rating of 24 per cent; Obama gets 86 per cent. 'His rhetoric does not match his voting record on this issue,' says David Sandretti, a director of the League. 'McCain is better than Bush, but that's not much of a yardstick, because the current
president is abysmal.'

But it is not just McCain's politics that are disturbing. It is his personality, too. For McCain has a secret reputation as a man with a ferocious, unpredictable temper. He is a man who has a knack for pursuing vendettas against those he thinks have slighted him, even if they are lowly aides.
The list of worrying incidents is long. In 1995 he ended up almost physically scuffling with aged Senator Strom Thurmond on the Senate floor. And, according to some accounts, in 2006 he had a fight with Arizona congressman Rick Renzi, throwing blows in a scrap whose details have only recently been detailed in Schecter's book. Schecter unearthed another unpleasant incident from 1992 in which McCain, tired after a long day's campaign, reacted badly to his wife Cindy teasing him about his baldness. 'At least I don't plaster on the make-up like a trollop, you cunt,' McCain snapped in front of eyewitnesses. Schecter says he has three sources for the story. McCain's campaign have denied it.

Such public outbursts, and many other private ones, have concerned people even in his own party. Former New Hampshire Republican Senator Robert Smith publicly voiced his concerns, once saying McCain's temper ' ... would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger'. That sentiment was echoed by Mississippi Republican Senator Thad Cochran, who told a Boston newspaper: 'The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.'

Yet McCain is still campaigning successfully as the lovable, maverick patriot. It is a strategy his staff believe will win the White House. So the tricks and stunts keep on coming.

A few weeks ago a letter was delivered to Barack Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters. It was from McCain and in gracious language it offered to hold weekly 'town hall' meetings across America where he and Obama would appear side by side. It would be a far cry from the rancorous circus of televised debates. The audience would be neutral independents. The questions would be random. It would summon back a golden age of gentlemanly politics. 'I also suggest we fly together to the first town hall meeting as a symbolically important act embracing the politics of civility,' McCain wrote.

Like the Denver speech, it was a vintage McCain ploy: superbly geared to his everyman image of decency. But the true McCain is far different. His dark side is real and Democrats will need to expose it if America is to avoid a third successive term of extreme conservative government. Now Democrat activists are pushing out their argument that McCain is a conservative wolf in a moderate sheep's clothing. They are highlighting the temper, the pro-war ideology and the links to lobbyists. 'We think he just means four more years of Bush,' says Karen Finney, a director at the Democratic National Committee. Finney's job is to convince Americans they have got McCain wrong, that they have been fooled. She and her fellow activists have less than four months to succeed. But for now, as America gears up to one of the most important elections in its history, McCain's dark side remains largely hidden behind closed doors"
 

ri0tdorque

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkylarV217
Just wondering who you ladies support =)

Wow - I voted (dem since that's what category I fit into) and am honestly shocked by the results.....not in a bad way per say just...didn't expect me to be in the minoity.
 

purrtykitty

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratmist
I'm not being mean or bitchy this time - I swear - but I really don't understand this.

Most people, at some point in their life, will not be able to meet the cost of their medical care or the medical care of someone they love. We're all living longer and it's said that eventually, the new "parenting" burden that our society will have to meet is the cost of caring for geriatric family members, to say nothing of those of us that will need treatment for long-term illnesses like cancer.

So why not (for example) have everyone pay a small amount every month towards the cost of medical care as part of their taxes so that everyone gets covered when the time of need comes?

I don't buy the argument that America can't put together a viable nation-wide health service that can cover every American. I was taught that if you wanted anything bad enough in America, you could make it happen there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zabbazooey
If you want something fucked up, give it to the government. We were so effective at helping the people affected by Hurricane Katrina, so let's put the health and well-being of all of its citizens in its hands.

For me, it's not that I don't believe there is a need, because there is, but I don't think at this point the government should be taking on socialized medicine before working out the other problems such as Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc. I could get behind the idea of socialized medicine if I could be reasonably assured that kind of program would work. The problem is past history has proved that our government has issues with effectively managing social programs. I don't think our government is incapable, but I need a showing of faith in order for me to believe that socialized medicine will work. Fix Medicare/Medicaid and/or Social Security, then talk to me about taking on the monster that is socialized medicine.
 

MxAxC-_ATTACK

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratmist
I'm not being mean or bitchy this time - I swear - but I really don't understand this.

Most people, at some point in their life, will not be able to meet the cost of their medical care or the medical care of someone they love. We're all living longer and it's said that eventually, the new "parenting" burden that our society will have to meet is the cost of caring for geriatric family members, to say nothing of those of us that will need treatment for long-term illnesses like cancer.

So why not (for example) have everyone pay a small amount every month towards the cost of medical care as part of their taxes so that everyone gets covered when the time of need comes?

I don't buy the argument that America can't put together a viable nation-wide health service that can cover every American. I was taught that if you wanted anything bad enough in America, you could make it happen there.




Small amount? no. it wont be small .. Not in the slightest. Healthcare for EVERY person in the United states. That will cost Billions upon Billions of dollars. and if you want good healthcare, you are gonna have to buy your own private insurance but you are still gonna have to pay taxes for universal. It isn't exactly fair.

I dread going to the DMV .... I don't want to dread going to the doctors (even more than I do now) as well
 

ratmist

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by zabbazooey
If you want something fucked up, give it to the government. We were so effective at helping the people affected by Hurricane Katrina, so let's put the health and well-being of all of its citizens in its hands.

The current system of healthcare is in the citizens hands via the insurance companies, and they can't get coverage or they can't afford coverage. It is clearly a system that requires that you never need serious medical care, which is a stupid gamble because we'll all need it for ourselves or someone we love at some point in our lives.

McCain's plan involves allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines and a tax credit to put towards the cost of paying for insurance of $2500 for individuals or $5000 for families.

My brother's health insurance - if he could get it - would cost him $3000 per month, and this would only cover him for emergency surgery and ER; it does not cover his visits to the doctor (he has a heart condition), his daily medication to prevent his heart from going into failure or any scans he needs to ensure his heart and his implant are healthy. He's expected to pay for all of that on top of the $3,000 per month.

My grandfather's insurance costs around $2000. My aunt and two of her daughters, who have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder/schizophrenia and autism, recently were able to get coverage through my uncle's work, but it costs them something like $1500 per month for my aunt and another $1000 for each daughter. I have no idea how they're paying for it.

Long story short, McCain's plan won't do squat for my family. And this is a programme that's supposed to put the money in the hands of the people? It's a paltry amount!

PS - Regarding folk displaced by Hurricane Katrina, a lot of people were relocated to my hometown in Texas. At first the medical professionals welcomed them, but when they realised that the insurance companies would not pay across state lines, they began to stop offering health care to the Katrina victims. When I came to visit my mother and got ill, I had a global health insurance policy. Since this was considered "across state lines", I had to pay up front for everything before the doctor would see me.

I think it's disgusting that sick people have to pay up front for help. It just makes more sense to pay a small amount every month into a system that will ensure you get seen for free when you need the help, regardless of where you're from or who you are, so long as you're an American and you've been paying your taxes. This is what Britain, Canada, Sweden, and other places with universal healthcare do.
 

ratmist

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by MxAxC-_ATTACK
Small amount? no. it wont be small .. Not in the slightest. Healthcare for EVERY person in the United states. That will cost Billions upon Billions of dollars. and if you want good healthcare, you are gonna have to buy your own private insurance but you are still gonna have to pay taxes for universal. It isn't exactly fair.

I dread going to the DMV .... I don't want to dread going to the doctors (even more than I do now) as well


It's a typical knee-jerk reaction to the idea of paying for universal healthcare, but it's untrue to say that it'd cost us more than we can afford to pay. It just depends on what your priorities are.

We currently pay something like $548.9 billion annually into the defense budget - the highest in the world. I'd prefer that a lot of that money go into stuff we need at home - better education, a health system that works, and jobs that don't end up outsourced.
 

ratmist

Well-known member
According to the Department of Defense:

"To date, $426.8 billion has been appropriated for DOD operations in the Global War on Terror. The funding requested in the President’s Budget would
increase this amount to $661.9 billion."

And you tell me we can't afford to pay for medical care? Bullshit. We just need to get our priorities straight. We can afford to send aid all over the world, blow the shit out of countries whenever we see fit, but we can't afford to take care of ourselves when we're sick or our sick or elderly relatives? Such bullshit.
 

ratmist

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrtykitty
For me, it's not that I don't believe there is a need, because there is, but I don't think at this point the government should be taking on socialized medicine before working out the other problems such as Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc. I could get behind the idea of socialized medicine if I could be reasonably assured that kind of program would work. The problem is past history has proved that our government has issues with effectively managing social programs. I don't think our government is incapable, but I need a showing of faith in order for me to believe that socialized medicine will work. Fix Medicare/Medicaid and/or Social Security, then talk to me about taking on the monster that is socialized medicine.

I'd have to look more carefully at the plans laid out by Obama, but I would think that Social Security is a separate issue entirely. Medicare/Medicaid would have to be swallowed up by a nationalised medical service.

I should say, I'm completely in favour of individual states deciding on how to cover their people. The infrastructure basically already exists because of the insurance system. The question is how the federal government would choose to regulate it and pay for it. But it'd have to be negotiated at state-level because as you say, it's a monster of a job.
 

mona lisa

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by captodometer
I will vote for Obama, only because I think he is the lesser of two not quite evils.

I don't think Obama really knows what he's doing, but McCain is just too damned old. The average life expectancy of an American man is 78.


That is the average yes. But many live a lot longer than that -in varying degrees of health of course.

I agree with you on Obama not knowing what he is doing but part of the reason is he is a young senator with less than a full term in the Senate. I am unaware of any senator ever who ran for president with less senate tenure than Obama (even Hillary had more than a full senate term before she actually decided to run). And while ideally someone with executive experience would be available for voting for -as executives such as former governors, mayors, etc. have some executive experience which seems to me important for the role of Executive of the United States- at least McCain can point to four years in the House of Representatives and twenty years in the Senate for some government experience. More on this in a moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by captodometer
Remember when Reagan kept saying "I do not recall" during Iran Contra? We all thought he was lying through his teeth, but he probably really didn't remember. Because he got diagnosed with Alzheimer's not too long after leaving office. I don't see the point of electing somebody who could become senile or die of old age while in office
th_dunno.gif


Reagan was diagnosed with the early stages of Alzheimer's in 1994 -five years after he left office. I remember the whole Iran Contra thing and one reason Reagan could not remember a lot of stuff is it was his subordinates who did all the planning and executing of the funneling of arms to the contras. Reagan approved of the first part of the equation (the selling of outdated munitions to Iran to offset the Soviet's support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war) but the rest of it was handled by persons such as Oliver North and company who kept Reagan in the dark.

But whatever you think of Iran Contra -and I happen to think it was fine to arm those fighting the communist thug Sandinistas rather than cozying up to them the way the Democratic congress leaders of the time were disgracefully doing- not a single American soldier was killed in that policy. The scale in the Iran-Iraq war was kept balanced so they could continue to beat each other up and wear themselves out rather than focus their extremisms elsewhere, it kept the Soviet attempt to gain a foothold of influence in the Middle East in solid check, and it also gave the Contras time to get the Sandinistas to agree to an election with observers that they could not fix which resulted in their defeat in 1990 the year after Reagan left office.

But those points aside, when it came out with all the hulabaloo, Reagan went on television and took responsibility for it as something that happened on his watch. Compared to President Clinton (who never took responsibility for anything he screwed up on and tried to take credit for things he did not do) and the current president (who seems to have his own problems admitting to mistakes made), that is no small thing to want to see in a leader.

I would vote for another Reagan in a heartbeat. But as that is not possible in this election, I look for the candidate most like Reagan and whatever you thought of Reagan, he stood by his convictions and did not let the public opinion sway him on matters he viewed as being of principle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by captodometer
The Constitution says you have to be 35 by inauguration day to become president. So I couldn't have run this year because my 35th birthday will fall 5 weeks after the inauguration. It's not exactly as if a lightbulb will go on the day I turn 35, suddenly giving me the insight to run the country. So if I'm too young, McCain is too old. But the Constitution doesn't specify any upper age limit; it probably should.

The rule is in place because someone at 35 is considered more mature than someone younger -one reason that the age minimum is 30 for the upper house (Senate) and 25 for the lower house. And that is an age I might add that was agreed upon by a room of men many of whom were not even 35 themselves. But even so, there has never been a president yet who was elected younger than their early 40's and that is probably a good thing -and I say that as someone who is not in their 40's yet and will not be for as long as I can be.

Both candidates running are flawed and that was the case when Hillary was running too. But I look at what candidate makes themselves accessible more and only one of the two left is willing to answer questions to the press and going out of his way to be accessible to them. That person is not Obama and such an omission is not insignificant as far as I am concerned. That is one reason why I will vote for McCain -there are others but that one is of significance to me which is why I note it here. Another is McCain has a trackrecord of going against his own party at times (even times that I was not happy with) whereas Obama has no similar record of independence from his party line so there is another reason.

There is also that I have no idea what sort of "change" Obama is touting: I would rather vote for something than an nebulous nothing and that is what the word "change" being bandied about with no explanation of its meaning being given sounds like to me.

Those are some of the reasons why this longtime Independent voter will vote for McCain in 2008. But even if you disagree with me, at least vote for someone rather than no one. Otherwise, you lose the right in my mind to bitch afterwards if you do not like what happens -either with the election results or with various policies the next president decides to enact or strive to have enacted.
 

Bernadette

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenjunsan
I usually always vote democrat, but I can't vote for either Obama or Hilary. This might be the first time in 17 years I vote republican. (Although I agree that the last 8 years have been bullshit!)

Exactly. I think I'm either nto going to vote at all or vote for McCain.
 

athena123

Well-known member
I'm not enthused about either McCain or Obama. As a registered Libertarian, I can't vote for the right wing nut job the Libs nominated for president (Bob Barr) and for the first time in years, I'm seriously considering a change in my party affiliation. The Libertarian party has been shifting to the extreme right for too long now I can't ignore it any longer.

I don't trust Obama. His "change for the sake of change" mantra just doesn't make me swoon as it has for so many others. Sure, a change would be good from what we've had but give us an idea of what that change really IS before you can expect me to buy what you're selling.

McCain is a least a moderate, much more moderate than Bush but I think the stain Bush is leaving on the Repubs will carry over to McCain. Plus I'm concerned by McCain's age, can he really pull it off?

I still honestly don't know who I'll vote for come November. I'd love to vote FOR someone rather than AGAINST, but it's likely the best I can do is vote for the one I think will do the LEAST amount of harm.
 

red

Well-known member
where's my Frocher
cutey.gif


We live in a capitalist society, we're not very good at "socialism" -- something that works only in theory but in the long run it does not.
With capitalism there are collateral damages, especially in health care ... that fall out is what we need to reach out and help. Not sure socialized medicine would help really. It still separates the "haves" and "have nots" ... because the folks with a low income can't very well buy the top medical plans and will still be discriminated against.

We are not a society that believes in goverment assistance, hand-outs, smacks right into the "enterpreneur" spirit this country was founded on. All this government needs to do for me is protect me, and create an environment where I can work, make a decent living, I'll take care of the rest.

maybe I'm a democrat that's tired of paying taxes
winkiss.gif
 
Top