NationStates Jolt Archive

If he's on the ballot here, Ron Paul. If not, I guess McCain just because although I don't like him or Obama, I'd rather have McCain than Obama in a second. Enough of the bandwagon bullshit, people.

are you suggesting that people support obama instead of mccain because of some popularity thing? that if they stopped and thought for a moment they would prefer mccains policies over obamas?

im thinking NOT.

there may have been some bandwagoning in the democratic primaries but only an idiot votes for the cool guy whose policies suck.

If he's on the ballot here, Ron Paul. If not, I guess McCain just because although I don't like him or Obama, I'd rather have McCain than Obama in a second. Enough of the bandwagon bullshit, people.
I'm sorry, but the only notable part of Paul's entire campaign has been is bandwagon bullshit.

The gold standard brought back in for US currency?

Aye, prepare to go extremely bankrupt as the price of gold rises according to demand, causing massive amounts of inflation, which is exactly what it was supposed to sort out. Nice one there.

She really can't go back to the Senate and do very much, she has very little seniority. She won't be chairing committees or anything, so I look for her to serve in his health care reform program and maybe a cabinet position.

If she'd done the right thing Tuesday night, instead of being petty and rude, the offer of HHS that was made earlier would have been hers easily. I'm not so sure it's still on the table now. That'll probabaly depend on how well she can put out the fires she set on the way out.

If she'd done the right thing Tuesday night, instead of being petty and rude, the offer of HHS that was made earlier would have been hers easily. I'm not so sure it's still on the table now. That'll probabaly depend on how well she can put out the fires she set on the way out.

Really, I just get tired of this. It was the closest primary contest in history. It's not a joke that the Clintons are not used to losing. It's not unreasonable for it to take a couple of days for her to gether her thoughts and realize what needed to be done. It was an extraordinary contest between extraordinary candidates.

Honestly, some people just can't seem to treat Clinton fairly. Some people can't seem to treat Obama fairly. Some people can't seem to treat McCain fairly. And it says much about them. If you wish to be one of those people fine, but it damages your credibility and the credibility of your arguments. I'm quite frankly tired of the partisan politics where anyone who is not the person you support is evil.

In the poll Obama has 42 votes.

What?

McCain has 9.

What?

If this is the way the general election will go...

But then again, lefty Europeans have been voting. But there's nothing wrong with that. Just an observation.

Of course, I'm saying this from the twisted view of one of those 9 people who voted for McCain.

So you can completely disregard this post.

Or not.

In the poll Obama has 42 votes.

What?

McCain has 9.

What?

If this is the way the general election will go...

But then again, lefty Europeans have been voting. But there's nothing wrong with that. Just an observation.

Of course, I'm saying this from the twisted view of one of those 9 people who voted for McCain.

So you can completely disregard this post.

Or not.

NSG is heavily slanted left, with or without European votes. No surprises in the poll.

Thank you. I don't have much experience in the General forum.

Aye, that's all lovely. Why do you keep supporting someone who has nothing like the support from Europe as Obama, who lacks his charisma and didn't get the votes to win at all?
Perhaps you are out of the loop or can't fathom the depth of Hillary's support?

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*

Obama 18,107,710 48.1% Clinton 18,046,007 47.9%

Seriously, Clinton is not who Obama needs on the ticket. You can't claim that you're fighting for change on the one hand, but keep up over twenty years of Bushes and Clintons being in power on the other.
IF one is fighting for "change", one cannot ignore half of the party.

IF one is fighting for "change", one cannot ignore half of the party.

Not putting the candidate of half the party in the ticket is NOT "ignoring half the party". By your logic, Bush's vice-presidents would have been Gore and Kerry.

So ultimately I doubt he'd need her as her Vice President, and even my dad said it would only work with a clearly defined set of boundaries and rules. (He also said it would be the most powerful team if it was done right, but I personally don't agree with him there.)
You father is right. Perhaps you should listen.

She should have a place in his administration I think, but not Vice President, if only because I think at this point she'll serve him better as, say, leader of the Senate, or a high level cabinet position.
If Obama wants to win in November, I truly believe that Clinton as VP would help him achieve that goal. I don't think he will win without her.

I realize that you, CanuckHeaven, and you, Shal, will not listen, that you will persist in your ridiculous behavior for whatever possible reasons you have.
"Ridiculous behaviour"? Perhaps you would like to clarify that?

So be it. Most of the Clinton supporters will now happily rally behind Senator Obama.
And it will all be sunshine and lollipops? I don't quite see it that way.....yet.

Not putting the candidate of half the party in the ticket is NOT "ignoring half the party".
Right now, there is some disarray in the Democratic Party and to succeed, Obama will have to attend to that matter. IF he can't accomplish that task, then he will fail at achieving what he wants to achieve.

By your logic, Bush's vice-presidents would have been Gore and Kerry.
That may be your logic, it certainly is not mine.

Right now, there is some disarray in the Democratic Party and to succeed, Obama will have to attend to that matter. IF he can't accomplish that task, then he will fail at achieving what he wants to achieve.


That may be your logic, it certainly is not mine.

1- Obama can re-unify the Party without Hillary in the ticket.

2- I was applying the "make the second-runner vice-president" logic you seemed to.

Right now, there is some disarray in the Democratic Party and to succeed, Obama will have to attend to that matter. IF he can't accomplish that task, then he will fail at achieving what he wants to achieve.

Obviously those willing to heal are healing, as evidenced by Obama's first 80% poll among Democrats all year. Considering he was sitting at ~65% for a while there, Hilary supporters must be starting to turn over a new leaf.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

You father is right. Perhaps you should listen.

It's a matter for argument. I do agree there is POTENTIAL for that kind of good team, mind. I'm just not sure it would actually happen.

If Obama wants to win in November, I truly believe that Clinton as VP would help him achieve that goal. I don't think he will win without her.

I disagree, and I further think that having her on the ticket like that would actually result in a negative affect on his chances, especially since the main benefit--the support of the Clinton supporters--has already been gotten now.

"Ridiculous behaviour"? Perhaps you would like to clarify that?

Ooooh the ways I could take this...

I suppose I could point out your constant actions in your vague attempts at "debate" such as slamming polls when they disagree with you and celebrating them when they agree with you, your admittance that you could only tear down Obama rather than build up Clinton, your constant attempts at making Obama look far worse than he is, and so on and so forth, yadda yadda yadda...

In short, your behavior throughout the entire primary.

As for the statement about Shal, with Shal's thread stating he will support Senator Obama, I retract it.

And it will all be sunshine and lollipops? I don't quite see it that way.....yet.
Hardly. But I do think that the vast majority of Clinton supporters will support Obama. Most of them are like my Dad: emotionally supportive of Clinton but willing to listen to what she said earlier today. A few, like you--apparently--won't, but that's a small minority.

Obviously those willing to heal are healing, as evidenced by Obama's first 80% poll among Democrats all year. Considering he was sitting at ~65% for a while there, Hilary supporters must be starting to turn over a new leaf.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Well that's good news.

Well, the "Clinthlhu" probably isn't helping. In fact, it isn't. But that hasn't stopped anyone.
It hasn't helped. In fact, I do believe that the Hillary hatred squad has helped drive a deep wedge in the party. Time will tell if that will heal. The longer that the attack squad is in operation, the longer it will take to heal the divide.

Right now, I am kinda disgusted with most so called Democrats who have played this game.

But no, now he believes that Obama needs a chaperon to the presidency and that's the drum he'll bang until the decision is made.
Clinton would be a great asset to Obama's goals. They both have complimentary strengths. And yeah, I am banging the drum as loud as I can.

That aside, I still have some reservations about Obama, which I detailed before.

After that he'll scower the internet for any bit of doom and gloom that predicts that he was somehow right and Obama will lose so he can gloat-never mind that it wouldn't really indicate that Clinton would have done better...
Four years ago, the Republicans swift boated Kerry. This year, it appears to me that it is the Democrats themselves that are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It is sad to say the least.

More telling:
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080604Clinton2_mdi03jse.gif
She's down almost 15% w/in her own part since March.
You just look at the negatives?

Obama wants to reach out to Republicans and Independents. Since Feb. her favourability has doubled amongst Republicans and increased 10 points (22%)amongst Independents.

BTW, do you have a similar graph for Obama and/or do you have the URL for that Gallup Poll?

Edit: Still waiting for an answer on this.

The only thing I can find so far is this (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll):

Obama’s bounce is primarily the result of Democrats beginning to unify behind his candidacy. For the first time all year, Obama is supported by 80% of Democrats over McCain. In recent months, his support from Democrats has typically been in the high-60’s or low-70’s range.
Which is less than Hillary's rating according to the poll you posted.

Edit: Since you cannot/will not support your argument, I went digging and found this (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=425):

http://people-press.org/reports/images/425-2.gif

http://people-press.org/reports/images/425-4.gif

What this tells me is that:

1. Obama (75%) and Clinton (74%) are equals amongst fellow Democrats.

2. Clinton (54%) is now more favourable amongst Independents than Obama (49%). Clinton is rising and Obama is falling.

3. Clinton (24%) is now on par with Obama (24%) with Republicans. Clinton is rising and Obama is falling.

4. Clinton would be an excellent VP candidate.

CH is still going on about this?

Wow.

CH is still going on about this?

Wow.

Heck, even Shalrirochia moved on to ask how can we get Obama in the White House.

CH is still going on about this?

Wow.

To be fair, he's moved on (slightly) to now campaigning for Clinton to be Obama's running mate, insisting that it's the only way Obama can win. It's working as well as his previous arguments, but then it relies pretty heavily on his old arguments...

You just look at the negatives?

Obama wants to reach out to Republicans and Independents. Since Feb. her favourability has doubled amongst Republicans and increased 10 points (22%)amongst Independents.

BTW, do you have a similar graph for Obama and/or do you have the URL for that Gallup Poll?

Edit: Still waiting for an answer on this.

The only thing I can find so far is this (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll):


Which is less than Hillary's rating according to the poll you posted.

Dude, give it up. There is not going to be some mass defection of democrats to McCain because Hillary didn't win. Democrats vote democrat, Republicans vote Republican.

Nobody cares about primaries come the general, which is why you get to lie your ass off during them.

Heck, even Shalrirochia moved on to ask how can we get Obama in the White House.

Good to know he's not petty after all.

CH is still going on about this?

Wow.

Is CH even an American? If not, should we even care what he thinks about our election?

Is CH even an American? If not, should we even care what he thinks about our election?

There are four reasons I don't use this argument:

1- I'm Brazilian.

2- The American policy affects the world outside the US.

3- It's not a strong argument. It's based on the person, rather than the argument itself.

4- CH isn't doing well in arguments about the elections. You don't need this sort of argument against him, and it would ALSO disqualify ME, a person one would usually want as an ally in any argument here.

There are four reasons I don't use this argument:

1- I'm Brazilian.

2- The American policy affects the world outside the US.

3- It's not a strong argument. It's based on the person, rather than the argument itself.

4- CH isn't doing well in arguments about the elections. You don't need this sort of argument against him, and it would ALSO disqualify ME, a person one would usually want as an ally in any argument here.

Touché.:)

Touché.:)

What? No flaming? No discussing? Just acquiescing? On NSG? Madness, I tell you! MADNESS! :eek:

:p

What? No flaming? No discussing? Just acquiescing? On NSG? Madness, I tell you! MADNESS! :eek:

:p

Cant resisit.... THIS IS NSG! ~Kicks into pit of death.~

I'm sorry, but the only notable part of Paul's entire campaign has been is bandwagon bullshit.

Oh please. Ron Paul was the best candidate available. I'm beyond upset with my party's (Republicans) neo-con shift over the past few years. Ron Paul is a true Republican.

Cant resisit.... THIS IS NSG! ~Kicks into pit of death.~

Aw, man... And I was with my new pair of pants on too... :p

only an idiot votes for the cool guy whose policies suck.

Welcome to America?

Oh please. Ron Paul was the best candidate available. I'm beyond upset with my party's (Republicans) neo-con shift over the past few years. Ron Paul is a true Republican.

Can you please explain why he was the best candidate available?

Oh please. Ron Paul was the best candidate available. I'm beyond upset with my party's (Republicans) neo-con shift over the past few years. Ron Paul is a true Republican.

Do feel free to vote for Ron Paul. And feel even freer to get other Republicans to.

Do feel free to vote for Ron Paul. And feel even freer to get other Republicans to.

I plan to, just as I did in the primary. Still, it will not make a difference, and that's beyond upsetting.

Kyronea, give me a sec

I plan to, just as I did in the primary.

*Gives SB two thumbs up. One less vote for McCain...*

Can you please explain why he was the best candidate available?

Actually, he does talk a good game. His stance is very realistic in respect of the future of the United States - unlike the rest of them. The problem with Paul is he is a complete douche.

Can you please explain why he was the best candidate available?

Ron Paul believes in American sovereignty and isolation. He disagrees with NAFTA and WTO and is a strong proponent of the free market. He also is the only Republican candidate who is against the war in Iraq. He voted against it from the beginning and has said he would bring the troops home.

Ron Paul is for flat-rate taxes and the elimination of the IRS. Tax codes in America are out of control and ridiculous. If there was a flat tax rate, of 19% I believe I read, the government would get the same level of funding as it does now, and people would do their taxes on a note card every April 15th.

Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. Politicians on both sides shit all over the constitution today, making big government and creating more bureaucracy. It’s pathetic and should be illegal.

Really though, Ron Paul couldn’t fit more perfectly with my views. As a Republican, it sickens me to see what Bush and his cohorts have done to the party. Republicanism isn’t about bible-thumping and war-mongering. It is a part of peace. Historically, Democrats start wars. Republicans end them. Republicanism isn’t about big government and high government spending either. We are one of the richest nations on earth, if not THE richest, and yet our education is pathetically average. We can’t afford to give education more funds because 1. we are too busy fighting stupid wars, and 2. the federal government is giving the states far too many unfunded mandates. And on top of that, Bush cuts taxes while raising spending. Horrible. Like a trailer park mom with 5 different credit cards.

Ron Paul’s voting record is impeccable. He only votes for a bill if it abides by the Constitution. He voted against the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraqi “Conflict.” He is a very smart man, having gone through Medical School, and if you listen to the Republican debate in 07, he understands more than anyone the world that we live in today.

The Neo-Cons are out of touch with their own party, but more importantly, reality. Ron Paul was our Obama, but not only that our Obama destroyer, and yet we let it slip away because the bible, deficit spending, and authoritarian dogma run the Republican party, my party, now. McBush is not going to win, and I’m going to have to deal with more big government for at least 4 more years. Maybe it'll be for the best. Maybe it'll be the shock to the system Republicans need.

I just changed my sig. Ron Paul '12. That's what I'm hoping for now.

The problem with Paul is he is a complete douche.

What makes him any more of a douche than the next politician?

I officially endorsed Barack Obama on 15 February 2007 here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335348&postcount=2) on NSG. I am ecstatic to see I picked the winner. :) On to November. (It's interesting looking back at that thread and how people felt about him...)

As for running mate, I haven't really chosen anyone. Anyone except Hillary is pretty good. I nominally favor Richardson or Edwards.

CH is still going on about this?

Wow.
QFT

To be fair, he's moved on (slightly) to now campaigning for Clinton to be Obama's running mate, insisting that it's the only way Obama can win. It's working as well as his previous arguments, but then it relies pretty heavily on his old arguments...
Clinton being VP would be a serious detriment to Obama for so many reasons. None of the demographics she claims would support Obama if she were on the ticket voted for her either because of feminism or to screw up the Democratic primaries--Operation Chaos.

I'm too lazy to type up the endless list of reasons why Hillary is a horrible choice for VP. In short, it's like defeating the school bully and then giving them your lunch money.

*Gives SB two thumbs up. One less vote for McCain...*
Not necessarily...

Actually, he does talk a good game. His stance is very realistic in respect of the future of the United States - unlike the rest of them. The problem with Paul is he is a complete douche.

Lol. Ron Paul was witty and amusing and a great canidate. I might have voted for him. Might. He would have at least been interesting to watch. And he would have made some changes to the government we exist in... it is a shame I won't see what he will accomplish.

What exactly qualifies him as a douche?

What makes him any more of a douche than the next politician?

Probably that his office won't take faxes from his constituents. Makes him grumpy.

Also, Bear Stearns hearing. Total fail.

I respect his weltanschauung insofar as he has articulated it. Indeed, I think he is exactly the kind of chemo the the US needs. But the fact is that he only talks the talk, he doesn't walk.

At the end of the day he is an idol with clay feet.

Though saying all that, Ron Paul as president would still be a lolday. So I'm in no way against it.

Ron Paul believes in American sovereignty and isolation. He disagrees with NAFTA and WTO and is a strong proponent of the free market. He also is the only Republican candidate who is against the war in Iraq. He voted against it from the beginning and has said he would bring the troops home.

Ron Paul is for flat-rate taxes and the elimination of the IRS. Tax codes in America are out of control and ridiculous. If there was a flat tax rate, of 19% I believe I read, the government would get the same level of funding as it does now, and people would do their taxes on a note card every April 15th.

Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. Politicians on both sides shit all over the constitution today, making big government and creating more bureaucracy. It’s pathetic and should be illegal.

Really though, Ron Paul couldn’t fit more perfectly with my views. As a Republican, it sickens me to see what Bush and his cohorts have done to the party. Republicanism isn’t about bible-thumping and war-mongering. It is a part of peace. Historically, Democrats start wars. Republicans end them. Republicanism isn’t about big government and high government spending either. We are one of the richest nations on earth, if not THE richest, and yet our education is pathetically average. We can’t afford to give education more funds because 1. we are too busy fighting stupid wars, and 2. the federal government is giving the states far too many unfunded mandates. And on top of that, Bush cuts taxes while raising spending. Horrible. Like a trailer park mom with 5 different credit cards.

Ron Paul’s voting record is impeccable. He only votes for a bill if it abides by the Constitution. He voted against the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraqi “Conflict.” He is a very smart man, having gone through Medical School, and if you listen to the Republican debate in 07, he understands more than anyone the world that we live in today.

The Neo-Cons are out of touch with their own party, but more importantly, reality. Ron Paul was our Obama, but not only that our Obama destroyer, and yet we let it slip away because the bible, deficit spending, and authoritarian dogma run the Republican party, my party, now. McBush is not going to win, and I’m going to have to deal with more big government for at least 4 more years. Maybe it'll be for the best. Maybe it'll be the shock to the system Republicans need.

I just changed my sig. Ron Paul '12. That's what I'm hoping for now.
Interesting. Thank you for telling me this. I eagerly await the counterarguments from others. (I'm just going to be an observer on this one.)

Interesting. Thank you for telling me this. I eagerly await the counterarguments from others. (I'm just going to be an observer on this one.)

A vote for ron paul is a vote against authoritarianism, evangelicalism, and pointless foreign intervention and war. A vote for ron paul is a vote for peace, liberty, responsible fiscal policy, and the constitution.

A vote for ron paul is a vote against authoritarianism, evangelicalism, and pointless foreign intervention and war. A vote for ron paul is a vote for peace, liberty, responsible fiscal policy, and the constitution.

So is a vote for Obama, but if Ron Paul is as far as you want to go, I guess it's okay as long as you don't vote for McCain.

A vote for ron paul is a vote against authoritarianism, evangelicalism, and pointless foreign intervention and war. A vote for ron paul is a vote for peace, liberty, responsible fiscal policy, and the constitution.

As I said, I'm not going to argue on this one. I'll happily sit by the sidelines.

Pfft. Ron Paul uses earmarks for his district. That's all you need to know.

Mind you by Heikoku 2's criteria, Bush was the best president in the 2000 election. So it only goes to show....

Mind you by Heikoku 2's criteria, Bush was the best president in the 2000 election. So it only goes to show....

Come again?

I just want a guy that obviously won't vote for Obama NOT TO vote for McCain.

So is a vote for Obama, but if Ron Paul is as far as you want to go, I guess it's okay as long as you don't vote for McCain.

Bleh but a vote for Obama is also a vote for silly things like big federal government and free healthcare

As I said, I'm not going to argue on this one. I'll happily sit by the sidelines.

Oh I know. I was just giving somewhat of a summary so that someone can link that instead of my rant if need-be.

Mind you by Heikoku 2's criteria, Bush was the best president in the 2000 election.

...he was. I know it's hard to remember given the failure that he's become, but Bush ran on a peace campaign and one of responsible fiscal policy. It was only after he got into office, after 9/11, and after the 2004 election that he became a public neo-con.

That and Al Gore was, is, and will forever be a joke.

...he was. I know it's hard to remember given the failure that he's become, but Bush ran on a peace campaign and one of responsible fiscal policy. It was only after he got into office, after 9/11, and after the 2004 election that he became a public neo-con.

That and Al Gore was, is, and will forever be a joke.

No he wasn't. And before this one goes any further, let me go on record in pointing out that I always favored any Democrat over that goddamn chimp that didn't fully evolve and therefore wants everyone else not to as well known as George W. Bush, as well as his "now older and with senility" version, McCain.

Bleh but a vote for Obama is also a vote for silly things like big federal government and free healthcare

Oh, yeah, who wants sick people to get treated. :rolleyes:

Oh, yeah, who wants sick people to get treated. :rolleyes:

I fail to see how the only two options are "free provided by the government" and "not at all"

Anything that the government can provide, the private sector can provide better. There are few exceptions to this rule, such as defense, but healthcare is not one of them. I for one do not what a metaphorically fat and retarded bureaucratic organization controlling my heathcare.

I fail to see how the only two options are "free provided by the government" and "not at all"

Anything that the government can provide, the private sector can provide better. There are few exceptions to this rule, such as defense, but healthcare is not one of them. I for one do not what a metaphorically fat and retarded bureaucratic organization controlling my heathcare.

The people that can't afford it still need SOME care.

The people that can't afford it still need SOME care.

Which is exactly why three things have to happen:

1. The deficit needs to be eliminated so that the value of the dollar rises. Inflation doesn't hurt the upper class. Irresponsible economic policy doesn't hurt the upper class. It hurts poor people. Cut their taxes yes, so that they have more to spend on healthcare, but for god's sake cut government spending.

2. A flat tax rate needs to be established. It will enable people to more easily move between one social and economic class and another. There won't be any tax penalties for being middle class. After all, the wealthy buy healthcare, and the poor are given it by the state. It is the middle class that suffers.

3. People need to be more responsible with their money. The amount of these people who can't afford healthcare, yet still wear name-brand clothing, have cellphones, buy nice things, etc. is pathetic. You don't waste your paycheck and then whine because you don't have money for bills.

The people that can't afford it still need SOME care.

The problem here is that he is also factually incorrect. Obama doesn't want to give people free healthcare nor for it to be government provided. Obama endorses making insurance more affordable and making health insurance required for children. Hillary Clinton similarly did not support free healthcare but instead insurance. The difference for her was that it would be required for everyone.

I fail to see how the only two options are "free provided by the government" and "not at all"

Anything that the government can provide, the private sector can provide better. There are few exceptions to this rule, such as defense, but healthcare is not one of them. I for one do not what a metaphorically fat and retarded bureaucratic organization controlling my heathcare.

You know, if just about every industrialized nation wasn't already doing it, you might have a point. If we paid less per capita on our health care, you might have a point. If we covered every citizen, you might have a point. If we weren't behind nations like Cuba in infant mortality, you might have a point. But they are, we don't, they aren't, and we are.

No he wasn't. And before this one goes any further, let me go on record in pointing out that I always favored any Democrat over that goddamn chimp that didn't fully evolve and therefore wants everyone else not to as well known as George W. Bush, as well as his "now older and with senility" version, McCain.

Yeah, but in 2000 the democrats were pro overseas wars (see bosnia) bush wasn't.

So basically, if you were in favor of the democrats in 2000, you got the result you wanted. Even if a republican delivered it to you.

On Ron Paul -

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

http://thecitizensjournalblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters.html

At worst, Ron Paul is a bigot. At best, Ron Paul is such a bad leader that he lets his newsletters go out for years while unaware of their inclusion of such awful rhetoric.

Bleh but a vote for Obama is also a vote for silly things like big federal government and free healthcare

.

Setting aside the whole idiocy of the big vs small government thing (Why not efficient government regardless of the size?!) what's wrong with free healthcare? Seriously? It'd save us tons of money because we wouldn't have the profit-motivated bureaucratic mess that we currently have with the insurance companies. (Not to mention it makes everyone much happier and less stressed out, which is always a good thing.)

Of course, the specifics of how it works are up for debate(personally, I favor a system that's more focused on preventative health care, a la Cuba's system, with the added bonus of our wealth being able to easily provide for the occasional necessities of surgery and whatnot. I suspect your problem is not so much with universal health care as it is with certain specific PLANS proposed.

Setting aside the whole idiocy of the big vs small government thing (Why not efficient government regardless of the size?!)

Because a big efficient government is an oxymoron. The "big vs small government" thing isn't an idiocy, it's a reality that's existed in America since before the Constitution was written. Most of American history is a conflict between big and small federal government.

what's wrong with free healthcare? Seriously? It'd save us tons of money because we wouldn't have the profit-motivated bureaucratic mess that we currently have with the insurance companies. (Not to mention it makes everyone much happier and less stressed out, which is always a good thing.)

A profit-motivated insurance company bureaucracy is by far better than a lazy, slow-moving, partisan, government bureaucracy.

Of course, the specifics of how it works are up for debate(personally, I favor a system that's more focused on preventative health care, a la Cuba's system, with the added bonus of our wealth being able to easily provide for the occasional necessities of surgery and whatnot. I suspect your problem is not so much with universal health care as it is with certain specific PLANS proposed.

My problem is with any healthcare that is funded by government funds. Any plan that falls into that catagory is at conflict with my views. Universal healthcare CAN be acheived through the private sector, and it CAN be cheaper, but it will NOT be free...nor "should" it.

You know, if just about every industrialized nation wasn't already doing it, you might have a point. If we paid less per capita on our health care, you might have a point. If we covered every citizen, you might have a point. If we weren't behind nations like Cuba in infant mortality, you might have a point. But they are, we don't, they aren't, and we are.

What every other industrialized nation does or doesn't do is no concern to me, and it shouldn't be of any concern to America.

What every other industrialized nation does or doesn't do is no concern to me, and it shouldn't be of any concern to America.

Because we live in a bubble? The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are magic oceans? As an American, why exactly should I not be able to learn from others?

What does matter is evidence and the evidence does not support the claims often made about universal healthcare. The evidence is available in abundance by examining the healthcare systems of other countries and comparing it to our own. Evidence matters in debate and it should matter to those making decisions for our nation. The healthcare argument is predictive and as such the best way to make accurate predictions is to use the evidence of those nations that have already done what is being proposed.

Because we live in a bubble? The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are magic oceans?

No but we should actively practice isolationism

As an American, why exactly should I not be able to learn from others?

You can learn, sure, but what exactly are you learning? How to raise the power of the federal government? How to take power away from the private sector? I don't think socialist policies are something to look forward to learning and encorporating. Of course you could, but why?

I'm going to school to make enough money to afford things like healthcare. My parents went to school and worked very hard from very poor upbringings to make enough money to afford healthcare.

Just because someone lacks initiave doesn't mean I should pay their medical bills.

What does matter is evidence and the evidence does not support the claims often made about universal healthcare. The evidence is available in abundance by examining the healthcare systems of other countries and comparing it to our own. Evidence matters in debate and it should matter to those making decisions for our nation. The healthcare argument is predictive and as such the best way to make accurate predictions is to use the evidence of those nations that have already done what is being proposed.

I agree. And the fact is that universal healthcare could save the US 4-5% of GDP.

The downside is that americans are hypochondriacs, and will have to learn to live with less. But that's okay.

No but we should actively practice isolationism



You can learn, sure, but what exactly are you learning? How to raise the power of the federal government? How to take power away from the private sector? I don't think socialist policies are something to look forward to learning and encorporating. Of course you could, but why?

I'm going to school to make enough money to afford things like healthcare. My parents went to school and worked very hard from very poor upbringings to make enough money to afford healthcare.

Just because someone lacks initiave doesn't mean I should pay their medical bills.

Oh god, that old chestnut again. "I want to pay more for unpredictable care so that I'm not paying for someone else." Except that you are paying for someone else, even more for those who can't afford it. Paying extra for someones yacht is sooo much more noble than paying into a system everyone benefits from.

I agree. And the fact is that universal healthcare could save the US 4-5% of GDP.

Cut social security. Cut medicare. Cut war spending. Cut the IRS. These are all things you can do if you want to boost the GDP.

The downside is that americans are hypochondriacs, and will have to learn to live with less. But that's okay.

Who are you to decide any of that though?

Oh god, that old chestnut again. "I want to pay more for unpredictable care so that I'm not paying for someone else." Except that you are paying for someone else, even more for those who can't afford it. Paying extra for someones yacht is sooo much more noble than paying into a system everyone benefits from.

Who said anything about nobility? I certainly didn't. I live in the world of reality, not idealism. I could care less if my plan or the plans I support are noble or not.

And how is my current care "unpredictable" in comparison to what it would be if they government provided it?

EDIT: I'm going to bed by the way. Just realized it's 3:50am. Why in the hell am I awake lol?

Who said anything about nobility? I certainly didn't. I live in the world of reality, not idealism. I could care less if my plan or the plans I support are noble or not.

And how is my current care "unpredictable" in comparison to what it would be if they government provided it?

Reality is, every one in is cheaper and more comprehensive. You want your precious money? Thats the best way to keep it.

Everyone in also means that you're not dropped from your insurance because you lost your job, or your company drops its coverage, or your dropped from your provider for whatever reason they can come up with to deny paying for your medical needs.

What does matter is evidence and the evidence does not support the claims often made about universal healthcare. The evidence is available in abundance by examining the healthcare systems of other countries and comparing it to our own. Evidence matters in debate and it should matter to those making decisions for our nation. The healthcare argument is predictive and as such the best way to make accurate predictions is to use the evidence of those nations that have already done what is being proposed.

Exactly. This is something that's been bothering me for some time, and not just about health care.

We let our ideologies rule our lives here when it comes to policy making decisions. Ideologies should be guidelines, not bloody Constitutions. We ought to do what works best(determined both by observing what has been done in other countries and by what we have tried ourselves in the past.) Again, I don't just mean on universal health care. I mean on EVERYTHING.

And by the way, my problem with people who argue on the basis of large government versus small government(does anyone ever actually argue for large government? All I ever hear are people calling for small government, really) is that they're not focused on efficiency. They're focused on the size. Efficiency has nothing to do with size. One government department might be made more efficient by decreasing its size, but another might be made more efficient by increasing its size, and by focusing on the size rather than the efficiency, we miss the whole point.

I don't doubt that a more efficient government would probably be OVERALL smaller, but the size focusing is ridiculous, especially when what's advocated to reduce the size of government is cutting random departments without any sort of replacement or even decent justification.

I agree. And the fact is that universal healthcare could save the US 4-5% of GDP.

The downside is that americans are hypochondriacs, and will have to learn to live with less. But that's okay.

Of course. There is a pile of evidence that our current system has us spending more for less, leaves all kinds of Americans out in the cold. Among those Americans that are left the in the cold, veterans are a large portion. You know, those veterans with no initiative. With the current cost of healthcare, it really doesn't matter if you're rich if you end up on the wrong end of a medical situation with an insurer.

My family at one point was millions in debt because my sister was "crazy" according to our insurer. And we're not talking about some minimal insurance. My mother was a nurse and had GREAT insurance. However, since my sister was "crazy" she was told they would only pay for mental healthcare for her condition. Unfortunately, mental health professionals don't often extract adnoids, which is what she was actually sick with.

The current system makes it to the benefit of insurers to avoid paying for medical services whether they are necessary or not.

You gotta love an argument that says we should avoiding looking at the evidence available to us and continue to spend more on health care in order to avoid paying for some others. It's like me arguing that I'd rather buy the same dinner for 100 dollars at one restaurant than pay fifty at another that sometimes gives free food to the poor (and thus incorporates that giving away of food into their profits and loss). It's an idealist argument that ignores reality, not the other way around.

And by the way, my problem with people who argue on the basis of large government versus small government(does anyone ever actually argue for large government? All I ever hear are people calling for small government, really) is that they're not focused on efficiency. They're focused on the size. Efficiency has nothing to do with size. One government department might be made more efficient by decreasing its size, but another might be made more efficient by increasing its size, and by focusing on the size rather than the efficiency, we miss the whole point.

I don't doubt that a more efficient government would probably be OVERALL smaller, but the size focusing is ridiculous, especially when what's advocated to reduce the size of government is cutting random departments without any sort of replacement or even decent justification.

Democrats (and neo-cons like Bush) argue for big government every time they take powers away from the states and give it to the federal government. They argue for it every time they increase government spending as well.

And when you hear an argument for small government from a conservative like me (or anyone else for that matter) it's basically a synonym for efficient government.

That being said, cutting departments is neither random nor unjustified. The only justification needed is that they are unnecessary and that the private sector or local governments could handle it better. Get rid of the Department of Education! That's the job of the states. Get rid of the IRS! The tax code should be flat and simple. These aren't random cuts. They're necessary ones.

Because a big efficient government is an oxymoron. The "big vs small government" thing isn't an idiocy, it's a reality that's existed in America since before the Constitution was written. Most of American history is a conflict between big and small federal government.



A profit-motivated insurance company bureaucracy is by far better than a lazy, slow-moving, partisan, government bureaucracy.



My problem is with any healthcare that is funded by government funds. Any plan that falls into that catagory is at conflict with my views. Universal healthcare CAN be acheived through the private sector, and it CAN be cheaper, but it will NOT be free...nor "should" it.

Can be cheaper? Fine. Now prove it will be. Prove that turning any service totally over to the private sector without oversight will make it cheaper. Not that it should -- I understand the theory. Prove that it will. Because if you can't then I'd rather not take the risk that even more people will be left with no way to pay for medical care.

Who are you to decide any of that though?

A taxpayer?

Democrats (and neo-cons like Bush) argue for big government every time they take powers away from the states and give it to the federal government. They argue for it every time they increase government spending as well.

And when you hear an argument for small government from a conservative like me (or anyone else for that matter) it's basically a synonym for efficient government.
Yes, yes, ideological claptrap.

That being said, cutting departments is neither random nor unjustified. The only justification needed is that they are unnecessary and that the private sector or local governments could handle it better. Get rid of the Department of Education! That's the job of the states. Get rid of the IRS! The tax code should be flat and simple. These aren't random cuts. They're necessary ones.

Such policies would only make things worse.

Here's something interesting: do you know why states rights even exist? The original colonies were much more separate than the country is now today. They only banded together out of common interest and the simple reality that any rebellion by one would be crushed while together they had a chance. Even once united they had separate viewpoints and even cultures for a long time. Thus, states rights were born. (There was also a practical reason due to the inability to communicate over long distances very effectively, making it hard to truly govern with a central authority.)

But today, none of that applies. None of us think of ourselves as Texans or Coloradans or Californians or New Yorkers before we think of ourselves as Americans. We're a united country now. And we don't even have any practical reasons for our current system.

it's ridiculously inefficient. Just look at educational standards for one. A student in Colorado is held to wildly different standards than a student in Alabama. It's no wonder we're falling behind on educational quality compared to the rest of the world.

Personally, I'm of a mind to say that state governments should simply be a lower level of government that deals with local issues but leaves things like education that matter on a national level to the federal government for the sake of efficiency.

I say of a mind because I realize that this would be practically impossible to implement under the way everything works now and I may very well be wrong about it on an efficiency level as well.

By the way, that whole schtick about private industry always being able to do things better? While true on paper, it's not true in reality.

Private industry has one thing and one thing only on its mind: profit. Everything else falls by the wayside. This means that if they will get more profit from a less efficient system--for example, the current way insurance companies are set up--they'll use a less efficient system.

On the other hand, government has tended to be pretty wasteful and inefficient as well. The reason for that, however, has to do with the people in charge. I can guarantee you that if you get the right people into government who work to make it as efficient as possible, then it can work a lot better on a number of things, like education, health care, mass transit, and that sort of stuff. And I only advocate government control because the people can actually exert real power over the government through voting, petitions, even running for positions themselves, whereas with private companies it would take a massive boycott to even affect the industry.

It's not a panacea. It's not going to be automatic. It takes the right people.

...

I'm rambling, aren't I? That's what I get for staying up so late...

None of us think of ourselves as Texans or Coloradans or Californians or New Yorkers before we think of ourselves as Americans.
While I more or less agree with you on the bulk of your post, I totally think of myself as a Californian before I think of myself as an American.

While I more or less agree with you on the bulk of your post, I totally think of myself as a Californian before I think of myself as an American.

I knew there was something wrong with you. I sit in my hotel room in Temecula just a-praying for a really bad earthquake. Incidentally the only earthquake I've experienced since I've been working there was in Chicago.

By the way, that whole schtick about private industry always being able to do things better? While true on paper, it's not true in reality.


It was never about doing things better. The idea was to cut down on corruption - which is far more rampant in government than the private sector.

Predictably, however, the government managed to privatize government functions without actually privatizing them, and therefore gave themselves a big double up with corruption.

I knew there was something wrong with you. I sit in my hotel room in Temecula just a-praying for a really bad earthquake. Incidentally the only earthquake I've experienced since I've been working there was in Chicago.
... (http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/nonoboy.wav)

How did it escape you that I was Californian? That and my profession are the two least subtly dropped things about myself dropped into my posts as if anyone cares...

Also, you're in the shallow end, my friend. Head North, to flavor country.

... (http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/nonoboy.wav)

How did it escape you that I was Californian? That and my profession are the two least subtly dropped things about myself dropped into my posts as if anyone cares...

Also, you're in the shallow end, my friend. Head North, to flavor country.

Dunno, but I really didn't. To be fair, I really don't try to gather the personal facts about posters. I try to keep the person out of the argument as much as I can (though I clearly fail sometimes). I mix all kinds of posters up.

I do keep some things straight, though, like the fact that you hate women.

While I more or less agree with you on the bulk of your post, I totally think of myself as a Californian before I think of myself as an American.

Agreed, to a large extent. When asked where I'm from, the answer's almost always Texas rather than the states.

Overall, I think the local over national identity has changed, with increased mobility.

Also, these days I find I self-identify more as an expat/internationalist than as a Texan.

Dunno, but I really didn't. To be fair, I really don't try to gather the personal facts about posters. I try to keep the person out of the argument as much as I can (though I clearly fail sometimes). I mix all kinds of posters up.

I do keep some things straight, though, like the fact that you hate women.

... (http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/toung_sunburned.au)
guess who found a Foghorn Leghorn soundboard?

All these discussions remind me of something Noam Chomsky said. If I recall correctly, it was about how the government drives a country to huge deficits while using fear to justify the cutting of social services like education, health care, and welfare.

So it should be no surprise why the middle class always hated the poor and blame their tax on public welfare rather than stupid bs like Iraqi Freedom or huge tax cuts for huge corporations. From what I can tell national inflation and economic problems have a lot more to do with globalization and policy makers than a person making minimum wage. I really don't see how the guy who's flipping burgers at your local Mcdonald have such a profound impact on your current wages/tax rate. People got to realize that as poor people gets poorer, so does the middle class.

To say the least, privatize social service by throwing it right back into a company owned by the people within our government isn't really privatizing or encouraging competition now is it? Nor would it help the economy that much when you outsource even US Army uniforms to other countries just to save yourself from having to pay hardworking Americans.

Therefore I propose that we vote for the party that is less corrupted rather than focusing on how a health care system will destroy the US middle class.

All these discussions remind me of something Noam Chomsky said. If I recall correctly, it was about how the government drives a country to huge deficits while using fear to justify the cutting of social services like education, health care, and welfare.

So it should be no surprise why the middle class always hated the poor and blame their tax on public welfare rather than stupid bs like Iraqi Freedom or huge tax cuts for huge corporations. From what I can tell national inflation and economic problems have a lot more to do with globalization and policy makers than a person making minimum wage. I really don't see how the guy who's flipping burgers at your local Mcdonald have such a profound impact on your current wages/tax rate. People got to realize that as poor people gets poorer, so does the middle class.

To say the least, privatize social service by throwing it right back into a company owned by the people within our government isn't really privatizing or encouraging competition now is it? Nor would it help the economy that much when you outsource even US Army uniforms to other countries just to save yourself from having to pay hardworking Americans.

Therefore I propose that we vote for the party that is less corrupted rather than focusing on how a health care system will destroy the US middle class.


The Party that's less corrupted? We can't do that, most states don't have the "Nevada Option".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above

Yeah, but in 2000 the democrats were pro overseas wars (see bosnia) bush wasn't.

So basically, if you were in favor of the democrats in 2000, you got the result you wanted. Even if a republican delivered it to you.

Okay, to drive home a point or two here, Bosnia was UN-supported. And heck, no, I didn't get the result I wanted from Dubya.

Okay, to drive home a point or two here, Bosnia was UN-supported. And heck, no, I didn't get the result I wanted from Dubya.

And actually it wasn't till after the fact.

I hope once this is done that this thread gets archived :D

And actually it wasn't till after the fact.

I hope once this is done that this thread gets archived :D

Is Iraq UN-supported now?
Was Bosnia this long and destructive?

Is Iraq UN-supported now?

Actually...yes.

Was Bosnia this long and destructive?

Much worse!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.mccain.obama/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The general election season opens with a neck-and-neck race between Barack Obama and John McCain, with more than one in five voters acknowledging that they might change their minds between now and November.

Let the fun begin.

Much worse!

Really? How so?

Actually...yes.



Much worse!

And, this, Corny, is why it's very difficult to take you seriously. Bosnia was a war that started without us. So it is, first of all, not comparable. Second of all, the number of deaths estimated as a result of our involvement was tiny in comparison to the death toll as a result of our involvement in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_2.html

It's fine that you still support the war in Iraq, and certainly you believe it's got a higher purpose. I can accept all that. But we're not going to discuss Iraq unless you at least pretend like you want to discuss the reality of the situation and not the bullshit that comes out of this administration.

And, this, Corny, is why it's very difficult to take you seriously. Bosnia was a war that started without us. So it is, first of all, not comparable. Second of all, the number of deaths estimated as a result of our involvement was tiny in comparison to the death toll as a result of our involvement in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_2.html

It's fine that you still support the war in Iraq, and certainly you believe it's got a higher purpose. I can accept all that. But we're not going to discuss Iraq unless you at least pretend like you want to discuss the reality of the situation and not the bullshit that comes out of this administration.
Aaaw, I was giving him a chance before the smackdown, and then you come along and smack him down :(

Ron Paul’s voting record is impeccable. He only votes for a bill if it abides by the Constitution.
He flat-out stated that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was unconstitutional, and then voted for it anyways. He proposed the enormously unconstitutional We The People Act.

And that's just taking issue with that statement. I could go on for everything you said, but odds are you won't pay attention anyways.

Oh please. Ron Paul was the best candidate available. I'm beyond upset with my party's (Republicans) neo-con shift over the past few years. Ron Paul is a true Republican.
His policies are crap, especially the whole gold one, seriously.

If you know about supply and demand, you'll know that the US trying to buy up a shitload of gold to back up its ailing currency will cause a massive price hike, necessitating that the government prints more and more money to afford the stuff, which would cause inflation, and hence more gold being needed or a revaluation of the currency to make it extremely weak.

His policies are crap, especially the whole gold one, seriously.

If you know about supply and demand, you'll know that the US trying to buy up a shitload of gold to back up its ailing currency will cause a massive price hike, necessitating that the government prints more and more money to afford the stuff, which would cause inflation, and hence more gold being needed or a revaluation of the currency to make it extremely weak.

Yes yes I know the whole Gold standard thing is a bit ridiculous. But no one is perfect, and that wouldn't pass through congress anyhow so it's foolish to worry about it in light of all the good that he stands for that WOULD pass through congress.

Yes yes I know the whole Gold standard thing is a bit ridiculous. But no one is perfect, and that wouldn't pass through congress anyhow so it's foolish to worry about it in light of all the good that he stands for that WOULD pass through congress.
Riiight. Because the Dems would let anything which vastly cut tax through, and the Republicans would pull out of Iraq and close off most of their foreign bases, right?

And those are his two main policies.

I could go on for everything you said, but odds are you won't pay attention anyways.

Why wouldn't I? Do I have some emotional attachment to Ron? Is he secretly my dad?

That's a bit more than ridiculous. If you had a cache of evidence as to why I shouldn't support Ron Paul, I'd be more than willing to look at it and re-evaluate my position. However, if what you would "go on" about is just liberal and/or socialist dogma then chances are I'll pay attention to it but disagree with everything you say. Just because your opinion is different than mine doesn't make your's right. It's simply a different approach. You obviously agree with your opinion. I may. I probably won't. That's just life.

After all, I know where I stand on issues. I'm just looking to find the candidate that best matches up. So far, Ron Paul fits the bill and I've yet to be shown that he doesn't.

Riiight. Because the Dems would let anything which vastly cut tax through, and the Republicans would pull out of Iraq and close off most of their foreign bases, right?

Both of which are a lot more realistic than the gold standard. I'm sure even you would admit that.

And those are his two main policies.

While I'll agree with you on the Iraq and foreign bases point, "cutting taxes" is too vague to describe Ron's tax policy. It's more a focus on shifting to a flat-tax rate and eliminating things like the death tax, as well as sharp declines in government spending.

Both of which are a lot more realistic than the gold standard. I'm sure even you would admit that.
Yes, I would.
While I'll agree with you on the Iraq and foreign bases point, "cutting taxes" is too vague to describe Ron's tax policy. It's more a focus on shifting to a flat-tax rate and eliminating things like the death tax, as well as sharp declines in government spending.
Uhu. Most Dems won't like that. Some Republicans will, some won't. Steep odds.

Yes, I would.

Uhu. Most Dems won't like that. Some Republicans will, some won't. Steep odds.

And that's why getting Ron elected wouldn't be enough. There is a changed needed in American politics and that change is a shift back towards Liberty. Ron Paul or a like-minded candidate is part of that shift, but getting people like that in congress is important as well.

People from both sides liked Ron's message. There were many liberals cheering him on as well as conservatives like myself. It is the establishment that is holding a libertarian mindset back.

Why wouldn't I? Do I have some emotional attachment to Ron? Is he secretly my dad?

At this point anyone who still supports him after bullshit like the Honest Money Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2756) either has some emotional attachment to him or is completely insane.

People from both sides liked Ron's message. There were many liberals cheering him on as well as conservatives like myself. It is the establishment that is holding a libertarian mindset back.
Paul is not a libertarian. A libertarian would never support DoMA.

And that's why getting Ron elected wouldn't be enough. There is a changed needed in American politics and that change is a shift back towards Liberty. Ron Paul or a like-minded candidate is part of that shift, but getting people like that in congress is important as well.

People from both sides liked Ron's message. There were many liberals cheering him on as well as conservatives like myself. It is the establishment that is holding a libertarian mindset back.
The Establishment doesn't like libertarianism because it's anarchism with a suit on.

Dem probably summed up the problems with Ron Paul the best. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13372729&postcount=73) I think there's an even better one out there, but I can't be arsed to find it.

Dem probably summed up the problems with Ron Paul the best. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13372729&postcount=73) I think there's an even better one out there, but I can't be arsed to find it.

The problem is that whenever you back a Ron Paul backer into a corner on an issue they say "ah, well, he wouldn't get that passed anyway" and then when you demonstrate he couldn't get ANYTHING passed they'll argue that he'll need the help of getting the right people involved in government, which of course will get his other nutty bills passed.

It requires us to be entirely intellectually inconsistent. Either we dismiss anything he doesn't have the power to pass, which is EVERYTHING. Or we don't and we nail him on things like the gold standard and his various nutty views on equal protection and the first amendment.

The problem is that whenever you back a Ron Paul backer into a corner on an issue they say "ah, well, he wouldn't get that passed anyway" and then when you demonstrate he couldn't get ANYTHING passed they'll argue that he'll need the help of getting the right people involved in government, which of course will get his other nutty bills passed.

It requires us to be entirely intellectually inconsistent. Either we dismiss anything he doesn't have the power to pass, which is EVERYTHING. Or we don't and we nail him on things like the gold standard and his various nutty views on equal protection and the first amendment.
More to the point... for a Libertarian he wants a lot of government input into various fields.

"Buy a shitload of gold"
"Fund a slightly different kind of space programmme"
"Spend a ton of money on letters of marque" (heh, because mercenaries are reliable, aye?)

Incidentally, having everyone coming from most of the Middle East's visas submittted for presidential review before they can come into the country to study (amongst other things) would be a massive time sink. Yet he wants this. On the other hand, it means any terrorist attack on the US from any countries involved would be directly his fault, which would be nice.

*edits*

After reading more of his website, it seems he's even more of a tool. Case in point : "Over the last year, prices of basic commodities such as coal and soya have raised in price by 50%"

He reckons that legalising different internal currencies in the US will help this. Not entirely sure that increasing demand from China, India and the developing world and lowering reserves of coal, as well as extremely piss-poor weather take much notice of these things, let's be honest.

-snip-
Not to mention letting the South go back to the eighteenth century, despite those oh-so-important individual rights. But then, since when has a big-L libertarian ever championed gay and women's rights as much as tax cuts for the big business buddies?

Not to mention letting the South go back to the eighteenth century, despite those oh-so-important individual rights. But then, since when has a big-L libertarian ever championed gay and women's rights as much as tax cuts for the big business buddies?
Yeah, actually, I'm just going to sum my and many others' opinions up here :

If you like Ron Paul, you're going for him because he's a libertarian, not because of his policies, or personality, or what he says, and you have no idea of what makes a good president.

This is a terrible way to vote.

Yeah, actually, I'm just going to sum my and many others' opinions up here :

If you like Ron Paul, you're going for him because he's a libertarian, not because of his policies, or personality, or what he says, and you have no idea of what makes a good president.

This is a terrible way to vote.
It is.

It seems rather odd that these people who seem to want the government 'out of my life' are the ones who by and large can marry, get hold of assault rifles and don't have to worry about paying health care premiums and, on the other hand, are quite happy to see their government act as the moral nanny of the nation. But it's quite a good way to rebel against the Cultural Marxists and the Fucking Liberal Pussies though.

In any case, the people voting for Paul are probably more concerned with trashing the economy with nineteenth century economic policy rather than social issues. I'm sure the IRS, Medicaid and *thunder rolls* the defecit are quite oppressive.

Oh well, he won't get in, just like the Libertarian idiot that's running this year.

Not trying to cause a ruckus but I've been hearing and reading material related to McCain and his service in Vietnam and how he may have given secrets to the Vietcom for better treatment.

I've heard various renditions of this story and at this point, I cannot say I believe any of them one way or another.

Not serving in the military myself, I cannot judge anyone who has been in this situation. I'm sure it is one of the worst possible positions anyone can be in and I give my heart to anyone who has served their country in any capacity (military and first responders).

Unfortunately one of the web articles that was forwarded to me quoted McCain himself from a May 14, 1973 article written by McCain in "US News and World Report" saying "...O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital.".

I personally look at this two ways.

One; Just because it is written word does not mean it is true. The Internet is full of factual and false information. Could this be another Swift Boating?

Two; McCain's father was Admiral Edmond John McCain, commander-in-chief of US naval forces Europe. This makes John McCain a valuable asset. Why damage the asset when you can use it as a bargining chip? This could be the reasoning why he received special treatment.

Either way, I hold none of this aganist McCain. I was not there nor can I confirm he gave away valuable information if any. In my opinion, he served his country well.

Will I vote for McCain? No.

If the election was held two years ago, I would have voted for him but now I personally think we need a new direction that I think Obama is more in tune with.

We need to fix this country first before we can fix Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran. They are threats but not immediate threats that we cannot defend againist.

When we have bridges falling down and F15's dropping out of the sky due to structual failure it time to fix us. Our infrastructure is getting old and needs to be replaced (including military assets). Spending billions a month in the Middle East takes away from that. We cannot financially do both!

Ron Paul would have been best to handle this situation but since he is no longer in the race, Obama comes in second. McCain is a warrior, not a builder.

These are just my humble two cents.

For those of you who know more about McCain's history please checkout or respond to the "giving up secrets" stuff. I'm curious about it.


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/bbbf0dc1dfa7fbf0

I take it the US doesn't have a monster raving loony party does it?
shame, i would vote for them. just to see what would happen if they took power.

I take the the US doesn't have a monster raving loony party does it?
shame, i would vote for them. just to see what would happen if they took power.

we have some raving lunatics within our parties but no truly crazy parties.

libertarians excepted.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.mccain.obama/index.html



Let the fun begin.
Some interesting points from that poll:

When pollsters asked about a field of candidates that includes Nader and Barr, the margin between Obama and McCain was virtually unchanged, with the Illinois senator leading 47 percent to 43 percent. Nader pulls in 6 percent and Barr 2.
Wow....Obama -4. Interesting to see Nader at 6%. Disaffected Clinton voters?

But this is most interesting:

What would Hillary Clinton bring to a Democratic ticket? Answer: About 3 percentage points.

A hypothetical Obama-Clinton ticket would currently get 52 percent of the vote, compared with 46 percent for a hypothetical McCain-Romney ticket, according to the poll. If Clinton is not on the ticket, 60 percent of her Democratic supporters said they would vote for Obama, 17 percent would vote for McCain, and 22 percent would stay at home in November and not vote for anyone.
Wow!! Obama-Clinton +6

Bottom line:

"Nonetheless, it does indicate that unmotivated Clinton supporters may be a bigger risk to Obama than defections from the Clinton camp to McCain."

I think Obama should concentrate on winning the first election?

Obama: Looking past 2008 (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.mccain.obama/index.html#)?

Amazing to say the least.

Some interesting points from that poll:


Wow....Obama -4. Interesting to see Nader at 6%. Disaffected Clinton voters?

But this is most interesting:

What would Hillary Clinton bring to a Democratic ticket? Answer: About 3 percentage points.


Wow!! Obama-Clinton +6

Bottom line:

Bottom line is that the Clinton supporters are going to be highly disappointed.

Bottom line is that the Clinton supporters are going to be highly disappointed.
You know this how?

And it really doesn't matter to you anyways? You will take either an Obama or a McCain win.

I think Obama should concentrate on winning the first election?

Obama: Looking past 2008 (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.mccain.obama/index.html#cnnSTCVideo)?

Amazing to say the least.

Wait, what do you think that link says?

You know this how?

And it really doesn't matter to you anyways? You will take either an Obama or a McCain win.

Oh it does matter. I may not vote for either of them depending on who their VPs are. Unlike some people, I look not only at the person on the top spot of the ticket but that of the Vice President as well.

Oh it does matter. I may not vote for either of them depending on who their VPs are. Unlike some people, I look not only at the person on the top spot of the ticket but that of the Vice President as well.

but the VP has no power? Its like an honorary position right?

but the VP has no power? Its like an honorary position right?

Tell that to Dick Cheney...

but the VP has no power? Its like an honorary position right?

No.

The Vice President is the leader of the Senate and casts a vote in the event of a tie. The Vice President also takes over as President should the President die or be incapacitated while in office.

The Vice President can also become involved in government in other, more different ways depending upon the President, as we see from Dick Cheney's example.

but the VP has no power? Its like an honorary position right?

Tell that to Dick Cheney...

Remember, Cheney tried to declare himself a separate banch of the government. He made LBJ look tame by comparison.

Wait, what do you think that link says?
Fixed.

Not fixed....grrrrr!!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.mccain.obama/index.html#

Then click on video tab, then click on:

Obama: Looking past 2008?

Oh it does matter. I may not vote for either of them depending on who their VPs are. Unlike some people, I look not only at the person on the top spot of the ticket but that of the Vice President as well.
So you liked re-electing Dick Cheney in 2004? :p

So you liked re-electing Dick Cheney in 2004? :p

That idea never sounded good to me. I think Obama gives Hillary a role in the process, but not as a VP. With this being the case I'd vote for Obama. He has several choices to make for the slot, with Hillary being about #5. He has more to gain from other alliances, not to mention it would give him a stronger support in some policy areas.

That idea never sounded good to me. I think Obama gives Hillary a role in the process, but not as a VP. With this being the case I'd vote for Obama.
So, you and Corny will not vote for Obama if he picks Hillary as his running mate?

He has several choices to make for the slot, with Hillary being about #5.
I can't see Hillary anything less than #1 choice. Truly a win-win for the party.

He has more to gain from other alliances, not to mention it would give him a stronger support in some policy areas.
Such as who?

Such as who?

Ralph Nader. :)

Ralph Nader. :)
The thot plickens. :p

Fixed.

Not fixed....grrrrr!!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.mccain.obama/index.html#

Then click on video tab, then click on:

Obama: Looking past 2008?

Not seeing it. I instead keep getting articles about how the Democrats are more united behind Obama then Republicans are for McCain despite Obama only being 'freshly minted' and that Obama does no worse among working class white folk than any other Democratic candidate. Pretty sure thats not what you're wanting to show me.

The thot plickens. :p

That'd certainly change the face of the election, wouldn't it?

A consumer advocate as President of the Senate? Oh, yes. :)

Edit: Lobbyists all around Washington would shit. Just stand frozen where they are, mouths agape and silently defecate. *nod*

Not seeing it. I instead keep getting articles about how the Democrats are more united behind Obama then Republicans are for McCain despite Obama only being 'freshly minted' and that Obama does no worse among working class white folk than any other Democratic candidate. Pretty sure thats not what you're wanting to show me.
CNN keeps moving it around, and now it is not even on the video page, but I did find it on YouTube:

CNN - Obama: Looking past 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D36z6LDy_Q)?

I think the Republicans will may a big deal out of this during the course of the campaign.

CNN keeps moving it around, and now it is not even on the video page, but I did find it on YouTube:

CNN - Obama: Looking past 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D36z6LDy_Q)?

I think the Republicans will may a big deal out of this during the course of the campaign.

Oh, sure, they'll go "how dare a nig... uhm, member of the other race think he'll win?" and then America will go :rolleyes: and vote for Obama anyways.

Oh, sure, they'll go "how dare a nig... uhm, member of the other race think he'll win?" and then America will go :rolleyes: and vote for Obama anyways.
Ummm nice racial slur.

* notes that Heikoku plays race card early.

* also notes that Heikoku probably missed gist of video

It seems rather odd that these people who seem to want the government 'out of my life' are the ones who by and large can marry, get hold of assault rifles and don't have to worry about paying health care premiums and, on the other hand, are quite happy to see their government act as the moral nanny of the nation. But it's quite a good way to rebel against the Cultural Marxists and the Fucking Liberal Pussies though.

I think it's idiotic to call people voting for the candidate that would suit them best "odd." That's pretty much the definition of politics.

Ummm nice racial slur.

* notes that Heikoku plays race card early.

* also notes that Heikoku probably missed gist of video

1- A racial slur I made the point that SOME REPUBLICANS would use. That's what quote-unquotes are for. Last I checked you supported Hillary, which means you're not quite a Republican. Yet. So, you're actually grasping at ANY straws now to get "offended" or what?

2- If the guy feels confident about getting the two terms, it's not my problem. My problem is how to get the guy IN one, then the other. And Hillary REMAINS not being a desirable solution to my problem.

3- Hillary played the race card, the sex card and just about every card but a frickin' ace of spades!

CNN keeps moving it around, and now it is not even on the video page, but I did find it on YouTube:

CNN - Obama: Looking past 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D36z6LDy_Q)?

I think the Republicans will may a big deal out of this during the course of the campaign.

Oh for the love of Jeff...that's what I waited all this time for? That he's confident at a rally? And you think this will be the 'secret weapon' the Republicans will use? Fucking really? "Oh no, he thinks he's good enough for a second term! Get him!"

My god, man. Are you that desperate? Honestly, if thats the worse that they do Obama is in better shape than ever.

Oh for the love of Jeff...that's what I waited all this time for? That he's confident at a rally? And you think this will be the 'secret weapon' the Republicans will use? Fucking really? "Oh no, he thinks he's good enough for a second term! Get him!"

My god, man. Are you that desperate? Honestly, if thats the worse that they do Obama is in better shape than ever.

Chill. I think he was simply saying that most people are annoyed and put-off by arrogance.

Chill. I think he was simply saying that most people are annoyed and put-off by arrogance.
You got that right.

Chill. I think he was simply saying that most people are annoyed and put-off by arrogance.

Dude, presidential candidates have been introducing themselves as 'the next president of the United States of America' pretty much since there have been presidential races. Confidence in a second term is really nothing. Frankly, if he doesn't think he's good enough for two terms he doesn't deserve the first. This isn't even a mountain out of a mole hill, this is a mountain out of a flat piece of land where someone thinks they might have seen something that looked like a mole once, but it might have been a house cat.

Dude, presidential candidates have been introducing themselves as 'the next president of the United States of America' pretty much since there have been presidential races. Confidence in a second term is really nothing. Frankly, if he doesn't think he's good enough for two terms he doesn't deserve the first. This isn't even a mountain out of a mole hill, this is a mountain out of a flat piece of land where someone thinks they might have seen something that looked like a mole once, but it might have been a house cat.

Ya I never said I found it offensive or whatever. Haha I was just suprised that you gave it such a...passionate...response.

Ya I never said I found it offensive or whatever. Haha I was just suprised that you gave it such a...passionate...response.

You fail at determining my mood or passion. You really shouldn't try to determine these things from text. Honestly I'm half paying attention while watching super cars duke it out on the Speed Channel. If things are spelled right it's a miracle.

You got that right.

Problem (Or, well, solution) is, most voters see this as self-confidence than arrogance.

I don't understand why Moore and Calero would split the votes.

I don't understand why Moore and Calero would split the votes.

Lost

Dude, presidential candidates have been introducing themselves as 'the next president of the United States of America' pretty much since there have been presidential races.
That is fairly normal.

Confidence in a second term is really nothing. Frankly, if he doesn't think he's good enough for two terms he doesn't deserve the first. This isn't even a mountain out of a mole hill, this is a mountain out of a flat piece of land where someone thinks they might have seen something that looked like a mole once, but it might have been a house cat.
Talking how he is going to end his second term, without having won a first one, seems extremely arrogant to say the least, and leaves him wide open for criticism.

Oh for the love of Jeff...that's what I waited all this time for? That he's confident at a rally? And you think this will be the 'secret weapon' the Republicans will use? Fucking really? "Oh no, he thinks he's good enough for a second term! Get him!"

My god, man. Are you that desperate? Honestly, if thats the worse that they do Obama is in better shape than ever.

Well, considering McCain talked about the state the country would be in when he was already into his second term, he didn't just predict he'd win twice but that all his legislation would pass the democratic congress.

The Republicans would be spitting into the wind. Does anyone else find it highly amusing that the same person who freaks out if you challenge Bill Clinton on policy is constantly challenging Obama for non-issues?

That is fairly normal.


Talking how he is going to end his second term, without having won a first one, seems extremely arrogant to say the least, and leaves him wide open for criticism.
This-
Well, considering McCain talked about the state the country would be in when he was already into his second term, he didn't just predict he'd win twice but that all his legislation would pass the democratic congress.

The Republicans would be spitting into the wind. Does anyone else find it highly amusing that the same person who freaks out if you challenge Bill Clinton on policy is constantly challenging Obama for non-issues?


I'll say it again, if this is the worse they can come up with, Obama has got nothing to worry about.

So you liked re-electing Dick Cheney in 2004? :p

You forgot something. I found Kerry dull and boring and as such, unfit for the office.

You forgot something. I found Kerry dull and boring and as such, unfit for the office.

Because, obviously, only exciting cowboys are fit for office. Regardless of their competence. The only judge of a president's fitness must be how exciting he is.

Some one tell Charles Manson to run in '12. He's one exciting mother fucker so there is no way he can lose.

And the Evangelicals may be in play this time around...

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/2008/06/exclusive-interview-with-mark.html

This-



I'll say it again, if this is the worse they can come up with, Obama has got nothing to worry about.

I want to hear again how "the Dems are swiftboating themselves" while CH continues to attack Obama by twisting up his words and deeds. The logical disconnect between those two things is a chasm.

You forgot something. I found Kerry dull and boring and as such, unfit for the office.

Even by NS standards, that's one of the most insane things I ever heard.

(Then again, I'm from the UK, where "dull and boring" has been pretty much required since Thatcher...)

Curious that 'dull and boring' are good reasons to declare someone 'unfit for office'... but being a lying mass-murdering fuckhead is okay.

Even by NS standards, that's one of the most insane things I ever heard.

(Then again, I'm from the UK, where "dull and boring" has been pretty much required since Thatcher...)

Curious that 'dull and boring' are good reasons to declare someone 'unfit for office'... but being a lying mass-murdering fuckhead is okay.

Agreed. I had to read that twice. Seriously, how is one "as such, unfit for office" because they don't entertain Corny enough.

Agreed. I had to read that twice. Seriously, how is one "as such, unfit for office" because they don't entertain Corny enough.

It's a good one. I guess this is why we elect actors?

And the Evangelicals may be in play this time around...

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/2008/06/exclusive-interview-with-mark.html

I don't know. I know that interview makes the case that up to or over a third of the evangelicals might vote for him, but I don't see a major defection any more than I buy the notion of feminists voting for McCain despite his views on abortion, etc. I think the biggest thing is that this usually reliable block might stay home.

It's a good one. I guess this is why we elect actors?

Works* for California...








*"works" is relative...

Works* for California...

*"works" is relative...

The irony, of course, is that it kinda does... :)

The irony, of course, is that it kinda does... :)

Well, once he got the big ass smack down after his ballot initiatives failed and he realized, yes, you're going to have to work with everyone, just because you won a freak election doesn't mean you've got a mandate, he's been a lot easier to work with.

A profit-motivated insurance company bureaucracy is by far better than a lazy, slow-moving, partisan, government bureaucracy.

??? I don't understand why you, or anybody else, thinks so. A profit motive means, first of all, extra money spent to make the CEO's and the shareholders get their yachts. But most importantly, the profit motive means that their interests are directly opposed to yours: the insurance company makes more money if you DON'T get any treatment for your illness. When I shattered my leg, the insurance bureaucracy not only made fight for hours, time after time, to get them to pay dribbles toward my medical bills, I still ended up worse off than if I had had no coverage at all (if I had kept the premium money, that would have gone further to making a dent in the bills than what the "coverage" turned out to be).

??? I don't understand why you, or anybody else, thinks so. A profit motive means, first of all, extra money spent to make the CEO's and the shareholders get their yachts. But most importantly, the profit motive means that their interests are directly opposed to yours: the insurance company makes more money if you DON'T get any treatment for your illness. When I shattered my leg, the insurance bureaucracy not only made fight for hours, time after time, to get them to pay dribbles toward my medical bills, I still ended up worse off than if I had had no coverage at all (if I had kept the premium money, that would have gone further to making a dent in the bills than what the "coverage" turned out to be).

I'd rather have a corporate fatcat who worked hard for the position he or she is at today, or a smart investor (including myself even) who owns stock, benefit from the profit than a bunch of lazy and unmotivated bureaucrats and full-time politicians. It's not like the government wouldn't be looking for profit either.

And it's neither my fault or the insurance company's that you bought shitty insurance or decided to go a cheaper route. Sorry about your leg and your situation, but I have had very similar situations and my insurance company came through for me with procedures and rehab that I otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford.

Not to be a hall monitor or anything (and I think you could argue that separating issues from a political discussion means that we only discuss the most shallow aspects of the candidates) but isn't the protracted health care discussion better suited for the issues thread? (not 100% convinced myself, so this'll be the last time I mention it.)

Not to be a hall monitor or anything (and I think you could argue that separating issues from a political discussion means that we only discuss the most shallow aspects of the candidates) but isn't the protracted health care discussion better suited for the issues thread? (not 100% convinced myself, so this'll be the last time I mention it.)

Fair enough

Although I think there's only so much one can say about Obama vs. McCain at this point. All the rest is just people rehashing the same argument.

Fair enough

Although I think there's only so much one can say about Obama vs. McCain at this point. All the rest is just people rehashing the same argument.

You didn't hang out in the primary thread? We didn't have a new argument since Feb. 5th and yet it still chugged away...

Breaking with my usual party and going for Obama here. Barr is a terrible libertarian.

Barr is a terrible libertarian.

Agreed. He's like a reborn libertarian who was only reborn half-way.

Breaking with my usual party and going for Obama here. Barr is a terrible libertarian.

Mind if I ask why?

Mind if I ask why?

I can't speak for CS, but I'd say it's because he took th right-wing economics to heart, but is socially authoritarian.

I may not really agree with far right-wing economics, but I could probably deal with a candidate who did. After all, they wouldn't get everything they wanted pushed through and it might make people think really hard about which social programs to push.

But that person would also have to be socially libertarian.

Both private and public industries benefit the same people, the rich. The case people make about inefficient government programs require me to accept broadbrush bigotry that is every bit as fallacious as "blacks are criminals". CEOs aren't necessarily hardworking. Politicians aren't necessarily lazy. Government programs usually don't work because corporations are sucking at that teet as hard as they can.

It's why corporations are directing the research of universities, both paying professors and recieving research that was done on the public dime. It's why hospitals charge different amounts to insurance providers and to government provided programs. It's also why they offer different services. It's also why we have a problem in our veterans' programs. We have people who are making money any way they can.

Unfortunately, we have some people saying this is just the nature of the government and so we fight against the programs instead of fighting to run them properly. Unlike in the case of private programs, public programs are voted on by us. If they are run badly it's because we don't hold politicians feet to the fire on the issue. Choose any position, CEO or politician and if you don't hold them to doing a good job they will screw you over.

Thanks Dem... actually I should have been clearer. I am wondering about why he was drawn to Obama.

I can't speak for CS, but I'd say it's because he took th right-wing economics to heart, but is socially authoritarian.

I may not really agree with far right-wing economics, but I could probably deal with a candidate who did. After all, they wouldn't get everything they wanted pushed through and it might make people think really hard about which social programs to push.

But that person would also have to be socially libertarian.

The problem with social libertarians is that they think the states SHOULD be allowed to insert themselves into our lives but not the federal. Neither should be allowed. That makes a libertarian more dangerous as President than as part of Congress. Because if s/he selects judges that give power to the states that should be reserved to the people, then s/he's very dangerous. *Jocabia voted libertarian since he started voting*

I'd rather have a corporate fatcat who worked hard for the position he or she is at today, or a smart investor (including myself even) who owns stock, benefit from the profit than a bunch of lazy and unmotivated bureaucrats and full-time politicians. It's not like the government wouldn't be looking for profit either.


Actually, no, they wouldn't, because the whole point would be that it's a publically provided service. You don't see police stations or fire stations trying to figure out their profits, do you? The same would be true of this.

Here's an interesting fact: despite my family's overall excellent lifestyle and general upper middle class standing(I think...) I haven't been to a dentist for eight years, because our insurance doesn't cover it. Furthermore, my parents are spending loads of money on various medications which they need, since they're both diabetic, and my dad also has cardiovascular issues. He's sixty-five but he can't stop working because he's the only income provider for the family. We spend huge amounts of money on our insurance every year.

If universal health care was set up properly, we'd no longer have to pay insurance. We'd have to pay some extra tax money, but a very small amount compared to what we're paying for insurance right now. Furthermore, we'd all be able to see dentists and get our medication much more cheaply and so on and so forth.

I look at the universal health care of other countries, like Canada's system or the British NHS, and I cringe. I want that system here in the United States too. I know we can do it without any sort of real cost problem, and the simple thing is we could easily eliminate a lot of the bureaucracy too because the profit-motive won't exist anymore. Anyone who even so much as tries to get insurance knows that despite the commercials and whatnot, insurance companies do every little thing they can to disqualify and overall prevent from paying out. This is true of almost any insurance, not just "shitty" insurance. The only insurance it's not true of is the kind that couldn't be afforded by anyone who makes less than a million or more a year anyway.

There are plenty of practical reasons for a universal health care system too. Preventative health care alone could save us billions upon billions a year from a reduced need for surgery and other expensive work, not to mention it would save companies across the country huge sums of money from not having to cover insurance for their employees.

But again, as I said before, it's got to be done the right way. Government controlled health care is not going to automatically be better just by virtue of being government controlled anymore than private healthcare is better by virtue of being private. It's all about the right people in control, the right aims and goals, and the right system.

The problem with social libertarians is that they think the states SHOULD be allowed to insert themselves into our lives but not the federal.

I don't consider that libertarian. All it does is place an authoritarian position at the state, rather than federal, level.

In my mind, a social libertarian is one who doesn't think any government entity should be able to infringe upon individual rights - including those not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.


Actually, no, they wouldn't, because the whole point would be that it's a publically provided service. You don't see police stations or fire stations trying to figure out their profits, do you? The same would be true of this.

Or, to go with something that we also see in the private sector - the USPS. the USPS actually cannot plan to pull in a profit. It's a bit annoying to some people, since it means more frequent increases in the price of stamps when costs are going up, but the USPS still provides service at much lower rates than any other such organization. And while you tend to only hear about the screw-ups, they are actually pretty efficient.

*snip*

I'm not a big fan of a single-payer system in the US, but I agree that we need some form of universal coverage.

Or, to go with something that we also see in the private sector - the USPS. the USPS actually cannot plan to pull in a profit. It's a bit annoying to some people, since it means more frequent increases in the price of stamps when costs are going up, but the USPS still provides service at much lower rates than any other such organization. And while you tend to only hear about the screw-ups, they are actually pretty efficient.

Indeed. It's a good system. I don't know if something similar would work well for healthcare or not but it's probably worth investigating.



I'm not a big fan of a single-payer system in the US, but I agree that we need some form of universal coverage.

What exactly is a single-payer system anyway? I keep hearing this thrown around and I've never been able to figure out exactly what it means.

It's not like the government wouldn't be looking for profit either.
WTF??? Governments seldom run surpluses. When that does happen, the pressure to lower taxes until the government is back in deficit is irresistable.
And it's neither my fault or the insurance company's that you bought shitty insurance or decided to go a cheaper route.
Group insurance policies, whether offered through schools (as in my case back then) or through employers (as more usually), are not chosen by the individual. Individual policies are generally worthless, since they will always exclude "pre-existing conditions" (that is to say, whatever you actually have), and this is inherent in the for-profit scenario (otherwise, people just wait until they were sick, and then buy in). I did not get any opportunity to "shop" for a good insurance policy, and would not have had any way to make an informed choice anyhow, since they only way you find out that you have a "lemon" policy is the hard way.
Sorry about your leg and your situation, but I have had very similar situations and my insurance company came through for me with procedures and rehab that I otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford.
Then you have had unusual good luck. I have not had insurance for years now, and so I have no prospect of getting any medical treatment for the conditions I have developed until I am 65, but by then I will probably be dead, or at least my conditions will have progressed too far for Medicare to do anything except expensive futility.

Indeed. It's a good system. I don't know if something similar would work well for healthcare or not but it's probably worth investigating.

I doubt it would. But it is a good example of a government system running efficiently and not-for-profit in an area that also has private companies.

What exactly is a single-payer system anyway? I keep hearing this thrown around and I've never been able to figure out exactly what it means.

It's a system like the UK's in which the government actually pays for healthcare for all citizens.

I prefer a model in which those who can pay for their own do, while those who cannot are subsidized by the government and in which private companies have great incentive to compete.

You forgot something. I found Kerry dull and boring and as such, unfit for the office.
As I recall, you found Kerry anything BUT boring. Of course your beloved Bush was "fit for office". :rolleyes:

Not to be a hall monitor or anything (and I think you could argue that separating issues from a political discussion means that we only discuss the most shallow aspects of the candidates) but isn't the protracted health care discussion better suited for the issues thread? (not 100% convinced myself, so this'll be the last time I mention it.)

For whatever reason, nobody ever loved the American Election 1: Issues (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554116) thread. I gave it a bump a few days back, and the mods still haven't locked it, but it seems to have lost its will to live.

As I recall, you found Kerry anything BUT boring. Of course your beloved Bush was "fit for office". :rolleyes:

Considering the fact that Kerry was only running on his Vietnam Record and nothing else, and that he missed construed his own military records (which were proven throughout these forums)...

What exactly is a single-payer system anyway? I keep hearing this thrown around and I've never been able to figure out exactly what it means.
The US already has a single-payer healthcare system, but it sucks. What you need is a universal healthcare system:

Wiki is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care)

Universal health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care)

No he wasn't, not he didn't, and no it wasn't.

Yes he did. Yes he did. Yes it was.

Considering the fact that Kerry was only running on his Vietnam Record and nothing else, and that he missed construed his own military records (which were proven throughout these forums)...

No he wasn't, not he didn't, and no it wasn't.

Yes he did. Yes he did. Yes it was.

Dear God. Link?

The swiftboat crap was just that. Everyone knows it. Even you. Kerry lost because he wasn't strong enough to call Republicans out for being bold-faced liars. And if there is anything proven beyond a doubt, the current administration is full of liars.

Considering the fact that Kerry was only running on his Vietnam Record and nothing else, and that he missed construed his own military records (which were proven throughout these forums)...
Your recollection of "facts" in this matter are provably false, but lets not rehash all of that. Lets stay focused on the present election?

Considering the fact that Kerry was only running on his Vietnam Record and nothing else, and that he missed construed his own military records (which were proven throughout these forums)...

Are you honestly going to sit there and try to seriously suggest that John Kerry never proposed any kind of policy ideas and that the only thing that ever came out of his mouth was "Vote for me, I was in Vietnam"? Seriously? You are really truly saying that?

Also, no, nothing of the sort was ever 'proven' on this forum. It may have been stated a lot but just because some Republicans believe that saying something over and over makes it a fact, it doesn't actually make it true.

Dear God. Link?

Unfortunately, anything he links will lead to the thread in our reality, not the one in Bizarro World.

Lets stay focused on the present election?

That I can agree with you on.

I doubt it would. But it is a good example of a government system running efficiently and not-for-profit in an area that also has private companies.

Good point.,


It's a system like the UK's in which the government actually pays for healthcare for all citizens.

I prefer a model in which those who can pay for their own do, while those who cannot are subsidized by the government and in which private companies have great incentive to compete.
Hmm...now that's an interesting idea. If it works the way I think it does, it manipulates companies into using their profit motive FOR the consumer instead of against them as it is now. Very slick if so.
The US already has a single-payer healthcare system, but it sucks. What you need is a universal healthcare system:

Wiki is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care)

Universal health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care)
Thank you. For once you're actually informative.

Hmm...now that's an interesting idea. If it works the way I think it does, it manipulates companies into using their profit motive FOR the consumer instead of against them as it is now. Very slick if so.

Indeed. I see it as the moving force behind Obama's healthcare plan. The idea is to use group bargaining in much the same way that companies do. A large company can negotiate a good healthcare plan at better prices because they bring a large number of consumers to the table.

If you or I try to negotiate with a health insurance company on our own, there's not much in it for them. They don't really need us as individual customers, so there's no incentive for them to give us a good deal. But if it were 3000 of us, there would be more incentive for the insurance companies to compete for our business.

If it is, instead, a whole state or a whole nation of people that are brought to the table, offering a good plan starts looking pretty profitable - even if the organization you're negotiating with (the government) is asking for some unusual requirements for the plan.

Health insurance companies right now will bitch and moan about the idea of universal healthcare. They'll whine that they could never make a profit if they covered pre-existing conditions or preventative care (despite the fact that covering the latter reduces costs in the long run). But if such a plan actually gets through, they'll all be clamoring to be the ones providing the government-negotiated plan. And those that don't make it will meet the requirements of the plan anyways, so that they don't start losing customers.

Thank you.
Hey...you are welcome.

For once you're actually informative.
Well, I think I have always been informative, but it appears to seem otherwise amongst pro Obama forces when discussing my pro Hillary stance.

Well, I think I have always been informative, but it appears to seem otherwise amongst pro Obama forces when discussing my pro Hillary stance.

Oh brother.

So, you and Corny will not vote for Obama if he picks Hillary as his running mate?


I can't see Hillary anything less than #1 choice. Truly a win-win for the party.


Such as who?

Oh, I knew your panties would be in a bunch over this. I probably would still vote for Obama, but not like it very much. Of course you can't see her being anything but the # choice... We all knew that so saying it is kind of redundant.

Better choices than Hillary...

1. Biden
2. Time Kane
3. Bill Richardson
4. Jim Webb
5. Clinton
6. Sebellus


I was reunited at an Alumni function with a great deal of friends this evening. A good friend of mine through my college days was an adviser to our fraternity. I will not give his name as his family is well known in Democratic politics and in political circles in general. He and his family have even worked for the Clintons to help fundrasing efforts for Bill. This person has pictures with the former president on getaway vacations and such. His family has worked for other figures in NY/NJ and nationally.

The story was like this... While playing a game over burgers and beer, a younger mate mentioned how close they were to scoring a point. My friend made a joke about Hillary being close as well, "but that isn't helping her right now is it?" We laughed a little, and this person revealed some insider information saying the likelihood of HRC being VP is between slim and none. Anecdotal for NSG standards sure, but the source is a good one.

Oh, I knew your panties would be in a bunch over this.
First of all, I don't wear panties....that maybe your choice of fashion but it certainly isn't mine. :p

I probably would still vote for Obama, but not like it very much.
Sometimes you need to take the good with the bad, or what appears to be the bad, to come up a winner.

Of course you can't see her being anything but the # choice... We all knew that so saying it is kind of redundant.
Well, I have good reason to believe that she would help the ticket and recent Gallup poll suggests that I am correct. She brings along the less educated voters, the blue collar voters, the white voters, the senior voters, the Hispanic voters, and last but not least, the women voters.

Those demographics dovetail nicely with the Obama demographics, i.e., win/win.

Better choices than Hillary...

1. Biden
2. Time Kane
3. Bill Richardson
4. Jim Webb
5. Clinton
6. Sebellus
Your proof that they are better choices.

I was reunited at an Alumni function with a great deal of friends this evening. A good friend of mine through my college days was an adviser to our fraternity. I will not give his name as his family is well known in Democratic politics and in political circles in general. He and his family have even worked for the Clintons to help fundrasing efforts for Bill. This person has pictures with the former president on getaway vacations and such. His family has worked for other figures in NY/NJ and nationally.

The story was like this... While playing a game over burgers and beer, a younger mate mentioned how close they were to scoring a point. My friend made a joke about Hillary being close as well, "but that isn't helping her right now is it?" We laughed a little, and this person revealed some insider information saying the likelihood of HRC being VP is between slim and none. Anecdotal for NSG standards sure, but the source is a good one.
Wow and this person is going around dropping "the word" huh? His likelihood of being in the loop and sharing it with you?

Kucinich is reading articles of impeachment for Bush on CSPAN.

1. Biden
2. Time Kane
3. Bill Richardson
4. Jim Webb
5. Clinton
6. Sebellus

I honestly don't see either Virginian as VP. Dems really need to keep those seats that they finally got there.

I'm favoring Richardson or Edwards, although anyone but Hillary is fine really.

Well, I have good reason to believe that she would help the ticket and recent Gallup poll suggests that I am correct. She brings along the less educated voters, the blue collar voters, the white voters, the senior voters, the Hispanic voters, and last but not least, the women voters.
A lot of her support would never support him anyway. A lot of the women came out for her to get her and only her. The blue-collars are idiots and don't really matter much. They'll come home in the end. The fact is the VP doesn't really matter and any gains Obama might get will be neutralized by disillusioned Obama-fans (like me) and people who hate Hillary.

Those demographics dovetail nicely with the Obama demographics, i.e., win/win.
They'll either come home when the time comes or they never would have supported him anyway.

Your proof that they are better choices.
They reinforce Obama's message.

Wow and this person is going around dropping "the word" huh? His likelihood of being in the loop and sharing it with you?
It's called a leak. Happens all the time. Now actually this has been on the news since at least Friday that there was little chance she would get it.

My dad bet me a dollar she'll be VP. I can't wait to cash in. :)

I say this year we mix things up by putting them into an arena and letting them fight it out gladiatorial style, vs each other... and some starving lions...

The biggest problem in the world today is too many Christians and not enough lions.:cool:

Kucinich is reading articles of impeachment for Bush on CSPAN.

What?!

What?!

To the YoutubeMobile, away!

To the YoutubeMobile, away!

It was going live when I posted, he might still be on CSPAN. There are 36 articles. . . . . .

Kucinich is reading articles of impeachment for Bush on CSPAN.

The one's against Cheney are still buried in Committee somewhere. This will go nowhere just like the last set.

I'm favoring Richardson or
Don't know enough...no comment.

Edwards, although anyone but Hillary is fine really.
Edwards couldn't even win South Carolina in the primaries (2004 & 2008). Obvious liability.

A lot of her support would never support him anyway.
You know this how?

BTW, if that is true, then Obama will have a difficult time getting elected.

A lot of the women came out for her to get her and only her.
Maybe so, but if their hero is on the ticket, she will likely get their support.

The blue-collars are idiots and don't really matter much.
Wow!! Hey blue collar workers in the US...."you are idiots". And, since you are such mindless "idiots" don't forget to vote me in November.

* I am Barack Obama and I approve of this message. :p

They'll come home in the end.
Don't count on it...I think a few of them here at NSG are already switching to McCain. ;)

The fact is the VP doesn't really matter
Really? Wow!!

and any gains Obama might get will be neutralized by disillusioned Obama-fans (like me) and people who hate Hillary.
Well then, I guess they really aren't Obama supporters then? Besides, the polls semm to show a favourable jump with Hillary as the running mate. And also, Hillary is making great gains with Independents and Republicans lately.

They'll either come home when the time comes or they never would have supported him anyway.
I think that was my point which kinda refutes your own point.

They reinforce Obama's message.
Obama and Hillary already agree 95% on policy. Hillary has national exposure. Hillary scored 1/2 the delegates in the nomination process, and you want to tell me simply that "they reinforce Obama's message" has more weeight?

It's called a leak. Happens all the time. Now actually this has been on the news since at least Friday that there was little chance she would get it.
Geez, I have heard ALL kinds of speculation. We wait?

My dad bet me a dollar she'll be VP. I can't wait to cash in. :)
Sorry but I truly hope you lose the buck!! :)

What?!

Yes, I'd like to know as well.

You've a telegram by the way.

Kucinich is reading articles of impeachment for Bush on CSPAN.

Ah, Dennis Kucinich. May the Luck O' the Irish stay with him.

It was going live when I posted, he might still be on CSPAN. There are 36 articles. . . . . .

Yeah, still going. 16 articles and still going...

My god, I want Kucinich's babies...

Kucinich for VP, anyone?

The one's against Cheney are still buried in Committee somewhere. This will go nowhere just like the last set.

Not necessarily the point.

First of all, I don't wear panties....that maybe your choice of fashion but it certainly isn't mine. :p


Sometimes you need to take the good with the bad, or what appears to be the bad, to come up a winner.


Well, I have good reason to believe that she would help the ticket and recent Gallup poll suggests that I am correct. She brings along the less educated voters, the blue collar voters, the white voters, the senior voters, the Hispanic voters, and last but not least, the women voters.

Those demographics dovetail nicely with the Obama demographics, i.e., win/win.


Your proof that they are better choices.


Wow and this person is going around dropping "the word" huh? His likelihood of being in the loop and sharing it with you?

Really, so you don't know me or really who I am, yet you can immediately write me off as knowing anyone important. I mean, why not? I could be an incredibly common middle road American to you if that's what you wish. I have had the good fortune to gain the association of some amazing people. Some of them are amazing because of their philanthropic nature, shunning material wealth. Others have a long storied history here in this country. I'm talking about Old Money here CH. Do you understand the distinction in American culture? I'm not asking to be a dick, I think it's essential to point out this difference. This person is linked very closely amongst the DNC. I will repeat, I have been very lucky to have met these amazing people. So in short, yes I do lend credence to what an insider would be saying.

Biden, more foreign policy experience. He's a pragmatic moderate with domestic experience to boot. He'd round out the ticket quite nicely.

VA governor Tim Kaine would be great in bringing about Virginia, and some moderate Republican states where the tallies have been close. Having the credentials as a Chief Executive give him a more practical understanding of how things work. Kaine understands what it's like to be a Democrat in Republican waters.

Obama/Edwards has a nice ring to it. For one thing, John Edwards might be able to bolster Obama's weak numbers in Appalachia. The "son of a mill worker" made poverty a priority in this race, and even drew 8% of the vote in West Virginia. Obama is said to have embraced Edwards' pledge to cut poverty in half in America within 10 years.

Jim Webb. A marine platoon commander in Vietnam, Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, with a son currently serving in Iraq, this combat-boot wearing Senator is not to be messed with in terms of patriotism. Good luck swift-boating him. The man does not shy away from a fight. And he could deliver Sweet Virginia, a swing state swinging Dem, without much trouble.

Bill Richardson solidifies the strong support for Obama in the West. The nation's only Hispanic governor, he also ran as the only Hispanic candidate, and, in case you missed the memo, that's a demographic that is going to factor in big in American politics from here on out. Richardson also pumps up the ticket's diplomatic credibility, which some see as an Obama weakness.

Kathleen Sebelius would not simply be an attempt to placate women voters upset with Obama over Hillary's exit from the race. The governor of Kansas, Sebelius embodies much of what Obama likes to term "healing the partisan divide." This moderate Democrat has done an effective job of governing a very red state. She's respected and a new face on the national scene. Having broken a few glass-ceilings in her rise as a star within the party, she'd make a nice pick to smash through yet another.

What makes Hillary better than any of them?

Yeah, still going. 16 articles and still going...

My god, I want Kucinich's babies...

Kucinich for VP, anyone?
I'd love that if only for the sake of having a social democrat in actual political office in the U.S.

But it won't happen...:(

Snip.

Remind me NEVER to piss you off...

Yes, I'd like to know as well.

You've a telegram by the way.

Replied. I personally stand by Pop Sci as an excellent source on info, but unfortunately it's monthly. I've got other suggestions for more current-events type stuff, and you can also look to blogs. You'd be surprised how many researchers nowadays maintain blogs of their activities and the status of their work.

Replied. I personally stand by Pop Sci as an excellent source on info, but unfortunately it's monthly. I've got other suggestions for more current-events type stuff, and you can also look to blogs. You'd be surprised how many researchers nowadays maintain blogs of their activities and the status of their work.

Righto then, thank you very much.

I'd love that if only for the sake of having a social democrat in actual political office in the U.S.

But it won't happen...:(

He was my second choice, behind Gravel.. so I'd be overjoyed to see him as VP. Of course, Gravel as veep would be a wetdream, but I'd settle for Kucinich. Articles of Impeachment would be a good opening salvo in his profile-raising....

(That sounds an awful lot like one of those "I'd go with Kucinich, but I'd be thinking of Gravel..." things. *squirms*)

He was my second choice, behind Gravel.. so I'd be overjoyed to see him as VP. Of course, Gravel as veep would be a wetdream, but I'd settle for Kucinich. Articles of Impeachment would be a good opening salvo in his profile-raising....

(That sounds an awful lot like one of those "I'd go with Kucinich, but I'd be thinking of Gravel..." things. *squirms*)

Just as long as you don't cry out Gravel's name as you pull the lever on the Obama/Kucinich ticket come November, ;)

Yeah, still going. 16 articles and still going...

My god, I want Kucinich's babies...

Kucinich for VP, anyone?

What's funny is that there's no article on the washington post website nor on CNN.

What's funny is that there's no article on the washington post website nor on CNN.

It's not on the CSPAN site either.... but it is on CSPAN.

Really, so you don't know me or really who I am, yet you can immediately write me off as knowing anyone important. I mean, why not? I could be an incredibly common middle road American to you if that's what you wish. I have had the good fortune to gain the association of some amazing people. Some of them are amazing because of their philanthropic nature, shunning material wealth. Others have a long storied history here in this country. I'm talking about Old Money here CH. Do you understand the distinction in American culture? I'm not asking to be a dick, I think it's essential to point out this difference. This person is linked very closely amongst the DNC. I will repeat, I have been very lucky to have met these amazing people. So in short, yes I do lend credence to what an insider would be saying.
So, we heard it here first on NSG....now what exactly did we hear?

We laughed a little, and this person revealed some insider information saying the likelihood of HRC being VP is between slim and none.
So, we really didn't find out yes or no....we found out something about "likelihood".

Biden, more foreign policy experience. He's a pragmatic moderate with domestic experience to boot. He'd round out the ticket quite nicely.

VA governor Tim Kaine would be great in bringing about Virginia, and some moderate Republican states where the tallies have been close. Having the credentials as a Chief Executive give him a more practical understanding of how things work. Kaine understands what it's like to be a Democrat in Republican waters.

Obama/Edwards has a nice ring to it. For one thing, John Edwards might be able to bolster Obama's weak numbers in Appalachia. The "son of a mill worker" made poverty a priority in this race, and even drew 8% of the vote in West Virginia. Obama is said to have embraced Edwards' pledge to cut poverty in half in America within 10 years.

Jim Webb. A marine platoon commander in Vietnam, Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, with a son currently serving in Iraq, this combat-boot wearing Senator is not to be messed with in terms of patriotism. Good luck swift-boating him. The man does not shy away from a fight. And he could deliver Sweet Virginia, a swing state swinging Dem, without much trouble.

Bill Richardson solidifies the strong support for Obama in the West. The nation's only Hispanic governor, he also ran as the only Hispanic candidate, and, in case you missed the memo, that's a demographic that is going to factor in big in American politics from here on out. Richardson also pumps up the ticket's diplomatic credibility, which some see as an Obama weakness.

Kathleen Sebelius would not simply be an attempt to placate women voters upset with Obama over Hillary's exit from the race. The governor of Kansas, Sebelius embodies much of what Obama likes to term "healing the partisan divide." This moderate Democrat has done an effective job of governing a very red state. She's respected and a new face on the national scene. Having broken a few glass-ceilings in her rise as a star within the party, she'd make a nice pick to smash through yet another.

What makes Hillary better than any of them?
Thanks for listing some of their strengths but...

I think I already listed many things that makes Hillary a better choice over all of them.

Hillary won the support of 1/2 of the Democratic voters....that is a huge clue. Plus all the demographics she brings to the table, plus her considerable experience. Hands down, best choice. Already getting a positive spin in the polls (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107764/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Takes-Lead-Over-McCain-48-42.aspx).

Since Obama clinched the nomination, Gallup has also asked registered voters for their Obama-McCain preference if Clinton were Obama's vice presidential running mate. At this point, Clinton would seem to give a slight three-point boost to Obama's margin over McCain, with the Obama-Clinton ticket leading McCain by an average of 51% to 42% over the past three days.
Why do you think that they are polling Clinton rather than any other possible candidates for VP?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE21FOVAfMfEbAE5LDwiYm8fGh4QD916SHJ01

Rep. Kucinich introduces Bush impeachment resolution
1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic presidential contender, said Monday he wants the House to consider a resolution to impeach President Bush.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi consistently has said impeachment was "off the table."

Kucinich, D-Ohio, read his proposed impeachment language in a floor speech. He contended Bush deceived the nation and violated his oath of office in leading the country into the Iraq war.

Kucinich introduced a resolution last year to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. That resolution was killed, but only after Republicans initially voted in favor of taking up the measure to force a debate.

Kucinich won 50 percent of the vote in a five-way House Democratic primary in March, beating back critics who said he ignored business at home to travel the country in his quest to be president.

In other words, this will go nowhere just like his Cheney resolution.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE21FOVAfMfEbAE5LDwiYm8fGh4QD916SHJ01

In other words, this will go nowhere just like his Cheney resolution.

That's okay. Obviously, with the huge catalogue of good reasons why Bush should have been impeached, it's a disappointment - but it's good that it's on the floor, at all.

Hillary won the support of 1/2 of the Democratic voters....that is a huge clue. Plus all the demographics she brings to the table, plus her considerable experience. Hands down, best choice. Already getting a positive spin in the polls (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107764/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Takes-Lead-Over-McCain-48-42.aspx).


Why do you think that they are polling Clinton rather than any other possible candidates for VP?

So you actually believe she's stronger because she'll capture all those people that will ALREADY vote for Obama?

All the while getting Republicans galvanized against him?

Oh yeah, great choice.

Also, the reason they are polling Clinton is that people actually think she'd do more harm than good.

Remind me NEVER to piss you off...

There's no reason to fear me. Most people who meet me will find me a very congenial individual.

I was introduced to a very different way of life than what I had grown up around. When I was 22 I was flown from NYC to Beverly Hills on Thursday night. After checking out a little of what Cali had to offer it was time for lunch. We had a great meeting with some very powerful HBO people. Speaking with these people, and realizing that the one of our dining mates had Lucy Liu calling him during the meeting. You see, he had been dating her for a while before that point. His role at HBO was in the sports department. Our other mate was head of HBO films at the time. The next day we flew on a private jet to the MGM Grand where we watched a Sugar Shane Mosley fight from the front row. My biggest regret was that it was only a short flight. We had dinner after the fight and flew back to Cali. By Sunday afternoon I was back in my suburban townhouse where I was struggling to make rent payments. This was my first introduction to people who truly had "wealth and power" and were not simply rich.

I have grown and looked at these people in amazement. These people manage companies and endowments. I have met people through my spouse's family, and as part of the organization I went to the BBQ for yesterday. It's a fraternal organization very closely linked to the famed "Skull and Bones" which is mostly DKE. For those of you not familiar with the "Greek" system here in the United States that is Delta Kappa Epsilon, founded at Yale in 1844. My fraternity broke from DKE in a struggle that led to both increasing in power. It's an organization that people will literally drop what they are doing to come to your aid. This does not just apply to members of individual chapters, but the organization as a whole. I have tested this "bond" on occasions and found it useful.

I will now stop hijacking the thread with my life. Before someone says "get a blog." :eek: I just wasn't going to allow assumptions to dictate who I am. You may believe what you wish, but I owe you all nothing right?

Snip.

I meant you argue well. The six candidates you pointed out... ;)

So, we heard it here first on NSG....now what exactly did we hear?


So, we really didn't find out yes or no....we found out something about "likelihood".


Thanks for listing some of their strengths but...

I think I already listed many things that makes Hillary a better choice over all of them.

Hillary won the support of 1/2 of the Democratic voters....that is a huge clue. Plus all the demographics she brings to the table, plus her considerable experience. Hands down, best choice. Already getting a positive spin in the polls (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107764/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Takes-Lead-Over-McCain-48-42.aspx).


Why do you think that they are polling Clinton rather than any other possible candidates for VP?

Because they have been following her and they still will for a little while now. This is temporary. Believe all you want in polls, this that and the other thing, but it won't happen. I'd put dollars to donuts on it CH. If there were a way to remain anonymous and actually arrange a monetary bet with you I'd be up for it. I'm guaranteeing it right here and now!

I meant you argue well. The six candidates you pointed out... ;)

right, so thank you for that as well.

So you actually believe she's stronger because she'll capture all those people that will ALREADY vote for Obama?
You haven't been paying attention?

All the while getting Republicans galvanized against him?
Republican's favourable attitude towards Hillary has doubled in the past 3 months. Reported earlier in this thread.

Oh yeah, great choice.
Excellent choice!! :)

Also, the reason they are polling Clinton is that people actually think she'd do more harm than good.
Your supporting proof for this claim? Or did you just make it up?

Mind if I ask why?

Dempublicents put it pretty well.

I can't speak for CS, but I'd say it's because he took th right-wing economics to heart, but is socially authoritarian.

I may not really agree with far right-wing economics, but I could probably deal with a candidate who did. After all, they wouldn't get everything they wanted pushed through and it might make people think really hard about which social programs to push.

But that person would also have to be socially libertarian.

This is essentially it. He'll tell you today that he opposes the War on Drugs and the Patriot Act, and while I admit I've no concrete reason to doubt that he's being honest about his positions today, his rhetoric certainly doesn't match his record. He seems more interested in being tough than smart when it comes to illegal immigration, and as far as I know he has yet to reverse his longtime opposition to gay marriage.

Granted, I'm the last person who should be serving as the arbiter of libertarian orthodoxy, but Barr seems to me better suited for the Constitution Party than the LP.

You haven't been paying attention?


Republican's favourable attitude towards Hillary has doubled in the past 3 months. Reported earlier in this thread.


Excellent choice!! :)


Your supporting proof for this claim? Or did you just make it up?

I have. Have you?

I'm SURE Republican attitude to her would stay warm AFTER she got on the ticket, wherever it was. Now, if you excuse me, I have a date with Morrigan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrigan_Aensland) I'm late to.

It is, because I'm being sarcastic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080609/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_as_veep;_ylt=An4MuYsWck1pGlXznaUsuuBsnwcF

That's why Dennis Kucinich should have been President. I'll never forgive the democratic party for this betrayal nor the media for their anti-ugly people bias which forced him out of the race. I'm not going to vote for Obama. Not now. Not after this.

Bush SHOULD be impeached, but calling for it rendered Kucinich unelectable, no matter how much NOT like Gollum he looked.

That's okay. Obviously, with the huge catalogue of good reasons why Bush should have been impeached, it's a disappointment - but it's good that it's on the floor, at all.

That's why Dennis Kucinich should have been the nominee. I'll never forgive the democratic party for this betrayal nor the media for their anti-ugly people bias which forced him out of the race. I'm not going to vote for Obama. Not now. Not after this.

That's why Dennis Kucinich should have been the nominee. I'll never forgive the democratic party for this betrayal nor the media for their anti-ugly people bias which forced him out of the race. I'm not going to vote for Obama. Not now. Not after this.

If nothing else, surely the potential for having a smoking hot First Lady should have been enough to bail him out on the ugly-people front.

I have. Have you?

I'm SURE Republican attitude to her would stay warm AFTER she got on the ticket, wherever it was. Now, if you excuse me, I have a date with Morrigan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrigan_Aensland) I'm late to.

It is, because I'm being sarcastic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080609/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_as_veep;_ylt=An4MuYsWck1pGlXznaUsuuBsnwcF
Here...try these on for size.....proves you haven't been paying attention as you claim:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13751545&postcount=271

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13753373&postcount=365

Why in the name of sanity would nader be running again?

You haven't been paying attention?


Republican's favourable attitude towards Hillary has doubled in the past 3 months. Reported earlier in this thread.

Many Republicans were of the opinion she was tearing the Dems apart. It's no shock they liked it.


Excellent choice!! :)


Your supporting proof for this claim? Or did you just make it up?

It's his opinion. Hehe.

Bush SHOULD be impeached, but calling for it rendered Kucinich unelectable, no matter how much NOT like Gollum he looked.

And if this gets pushed, it'll hurt the Dems the same way it hurt the Republicans when they impeached Clinton.

Why in the name of sanity would nader be running again?

INsanity.

Now, if only the vote in the US would actually match the percentages in the poll...

Here...try these on for size.....proves you haven't been paying attention as you claim:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13751545&postcount=271

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13753373&postcount=365

You do, of course, realize that these polls are changed by the fact that MANY Hillary supporters bought into her victimhood narrative and saw Obama unfavorably as well as many McCain supporters seeing Hillary as helping THEM and thus seeing HER favorably?

And if this gets pushed, it'll hurt the Dems the same way it hurt the Republicans when they impeached Clinton.

So... what? Americans shouldn't impeach bad presidents, because it is unfavourable next-election policy?

I'm watching McCain's speech on Youtube and analyzed his discourse somewhat...

The guy is a joke! He attacks his opponent and smiles uneasily shortly after. He seems to be utterly ignorant of what signal he wants to send, he complains about treatment he received then he smiles and smirks. It's like someone laughing while talking about an earthquake. During the speech itself, he looks somber and glum, when dealing with supporters.

He does not manage his signs.

He furthermore seems to mangle lots of phrasal structures, to stumble over words, tones of voice (he sounds like he's saying "that's not change we can believe in?" rather than the negative statement) and so on. And that's just in the Linguistics issue.

Then there's outright SAYING he kept his silence over something because it was "politically hard", there was the "bottled hot water" thing, the green background, the bad tone of voice, the "attacking an opponent in a night in which it's dumb to", and the "let's use my opponent's slogan in the night he's winning".

He not only uses a speech to attack Obama in a bad moment to, he does it without any true will or force. He doesn't sound like he's making a speech, he sounds like he's whining.

If McCain asks for debates, Obama, by all means, GIVE THEM TO HIM.

That's why Dennis Kucinich should have been the nominee. I'll never forgive the democratic party for this betrayal nor the media for their anti-ugly people bias which forced him out of the race. I'm not going to vote for Obama. Not now. Not after this.
Kucinich is far too European in outlook for the average US voter. There's yer problem.

Now, if only the vote in the US would actually match the percentages in the poll...
Which poll are you talking about here? :p

You do, of course, realize that these polls are changed by the fact that MANY Hillary supporters bought into her victimhood narrative and saw Obama unfavorably as well as many McCain supporters seeing Hillary as helping THEM and thus seeing HER favorably?
The more I read your posts, the more I am inclined to believe that you just make up stuff.

IF Republicans did start to favour Hillary more because she was as you say "helping THEM", then how do you explain the increase of support amongst Independents through the same time frame?

The more I read your posts, the more I am inclined to believe that you just make up stuff.

IF Republicans did start to favour Hillary more because she was as you say "helping THEM", then how do you explain the increase of support amongst Independents through the same time frame?

Nice to meet you, pot, but I'm not kettle.

For starters, Republican leaning ones. Also, in the last three months, she played the victim a LOT, which did help her. How long would it last before the actual election and with a candidate that does NOT endorse victimization?

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven;13756802]You haven't been paying attention?


Republican's favourable attitude towards Hillary has doubled in the past 3 months. Reported earlier in this thread.


Excellent choice!! :)

Your supporting proof for this claim? Or did you just make it up?[/QUOTE

Ah, the more favorable attitude towards Hillary might be a signal of what? I mean, the "vast right wing conspiracy" suddenly is Hillary's ally? Their motivation is likely the motivation of Rush Limbaugh and his cronies. They are supportive of Hillary because she gives them the best chance of winning. Right now right wingers are not so enamored with McCain. Recently there have been rumblings that the "base" might just stay home and not go out for him. But give them Hillary to vote against and they sure as shit will come out to back McCain. She's a lightning rod that will give McCain and easier road to the WH.

(CNN) – As Hillary Clinton battles to keep her presidential bid alive, she may be getting help from an unlikely source: conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh has been actively urging his Texas listeners to cross over and vote for Clinton in that state’s open primary Tuesday, arguing it helps the Republicans if the Democratic race remains unsettled for weeks to come.

“I want Hillary to stay in this…this is too good a soap opera,” Limbaugh told fellow conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham on Fox News Friday. He reiterated the comments on his Monday show and replayed the exchange with Ingram.

He also said Clinton is more willing than the Republican National Committee and John McCain’s campaign to criticize Barack Obama.

“We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically. It’s obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it, they don’t have the stomach for it,” Limbaugh continued. “As you probably know we’re getting all kinds of memos from the RNC saying we’re not going to be critical. Mark McKinnon of McCain’s campaign said he’ll quit if they get critical over Obama. This is the presidency of the United States we’re talking about. I want our party to win I want the Democrats to lose.”

In Texas the Republicans always vote for the most likely to lose to a Republican in the General Election, they vote in the primary and not the caucus. The caucus is the real indicator as to who voted for real - for the Democrats to win - in Texas. The primary is always a rigged election. Get smart. No Republican will ever vote honestly for the Clintons, even a ton of Democrats hate them.

So... what? Americans shouldn't impeach bad presidents, because it is unfavourable next-election policy?

Because Impeaching Bush would just be seen as a political ploy and not anything else. Why do you think before Clinton was Impeached there hadn't been one in 130+ years?

Nixon was close to being impeached but resigned before he officially was impeached.

Clinton was impeached based on an investigation that had no bearing on what the original investigation was.

This will be in that category.

The more I read your posts, the more I am inclined to believe that you just make up stuff.

That's funny coming from you.

IF Republicans did start to favour Hillary more because she was as you say "helping THEM", then how do you explain the increase of support amongst Independents through the same time frame?

I guess you haven't been listening to her spin doctors?

That's funny coming from you.



I guess you haven't been listening to her spin doctors?

Yes, Heiku was making this up when he posted it for you and you promptly ignored it.

Hillary receives mixed reviews according to polls. Date yesterday, June 9th. I'd say that the most up to date analysis we can get. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080609/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_as_veep;_ylt=An4MuYsWck1pGlXznaUsuuBsnwcF)

WASHINGTON - Lots of Democrats love Hillary Rodham Clinton. Yet plenty of Republicans, conservatives and all-important independents can't stand her, suggesting possible pitfalls for Barack Obama should he make her his vice presidential running mate.
ADVERTISEMENT

The intense dislike for Clinton suggests that besides support from women and others she could bring to the ticket, she might make it harder for Obama to win over some independents, a pivotal swing group in the November election against Republican John McCain. It also means she might push some Republicans and conservatives to vote against the Democrats — or donate money to the GOP — who might otherwise lack motivation to do so because of tepid feelings toward McCain.

A substantial 32 percent of independents strongly dislike Clinton, 10 points more than say so about Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll conducted over the last several months. Independents, a group that both Obama and McCain won during their party primaries this year, comprised a quarter of voters in the 2004 election and have been closely contested in every presidential election since 1992.

In addition, 67 percent of Republicans have very unfavorable views of Clinton, 24 percentage points more than feel that way about Obama. Among conservatives the spread is similar — 58 percent say they feel very negatively about her, 18 points more than say so about Obama.

Few conservatives and Republicans are going to vote under any circumstances for Obama, the Illinois senator who clinched the Democratic presidential nomination last week and already has advisers culling possible running mates. But both parties will be trying to discern whether putting Clinton on the ticket might in some ways backfire.

"I don't think I'd like the idea of Hillary Clinton attached to anything," said Kym Williams, 33, of Knoxville, Tenn., a Republican who's not decided how to vote in November. "I'm not for a lot of the things she stands for."

Other groups with significantly stronger negative feelings about Clinton than Obama include whites under age 30, male college graduates, white men and whites earning at least $100,000 a year.

On the other hand, Clinton is popular with other voters, which could make her an asset to Obama. According to the AP-Yahoo survey, the New York senator is viewed significantly more favorably than Obama by many white Democrats, Hispanics and Catholics. She carried all those groups decisively against Obama in this year's Democratic primaries, exit polls of voters showed.

The AP-Yahoo poll shows little difference in how favorably the two are viewed by several other groups Clinton won during the primaries, including working-class whites, people over age 65 and women.

A comparison in the AP-Yahoo survey of how the two Democrats would fare against McCain yields similar patterns in their appeal.

Clinton does 23 points better than Obama against McCain among Hispanics, 18 points better with Catholics and 14 points better with elderly whites. Obama is far stronger among blacks, the young and college graduates.

While Clinton has told fellow Democrats she'd be open to being the vice presidential candidate, Obama has said he will take some time to decide.

Republican pollster Whit Ayres guessed Clinton would hurt Obama, but said he doubted she would have much impact drawing voters to the polls to oppose the Democratic ticket.

"Obama is plenty energizing enough for Republicans and conservatives," he said.

History shows that vice presidential nominees don't always work out as planned.

Gallup polls showed that when Rep. Geraldine Ferraro became the first female major party vice presidential candidate in 1984, over half said she made them likelier to back the party's ticket, headed by Walter Mondale. By October, after much of the campaign ended up focusing on questions about her husband's taxes, more people said her presence made them likelier to vote against Mondale than for him.

Four years later, public reaction was initially mixed when George H.W. Bush picked little known Sen. Dan Quayle of Indiana as his GOP running mate. Opinion turned negative within a month, after his Vietnam-era service in the National Guard was challenged.

Bob Beckel, Mondale's campaign manager, said Ferraro had little impact on a race Mondale lost badly to President Reagan. He said Clinton might prompt some people to vote against Obama, but mostly in GOP-dominated states Democrats would likely lose anyway.

"Mostly you don't vote for vice president, you vote for president," Beckel said.

For now, there is no definitive answer whether Clinton would help or hurt Democrats. Gallup and CNN polls last week showed the Democratic ticket doing slightly better against McCain with Clinton on Obama's ticket than when Obama and McCain were paired without running mates.

Polls do make clear how divided Democrats are over adding Clinton to the ticket. Half or more Democrats liked the idea in recent polls, but Obama's supporters are less enthusiastic than hers.

The AP-Yahoo poll involved telephone interviews with 2,124 adults conducted April 2-June 2, though most interviews were in April and all were before Clinton quit the race on Saturday. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

So yeah, he was just "making stuff up." Except that he wasn't as can be seen right here. Do you ever tire of being proved wrong? I mean, if I was used as a punching bag by superior fighters, (Yes, Joc, myself, CTOAN, and even Heiku have proven you to be a toothless tiger) I'd tire of the beating. You keep coming back though, but why?

...and even Heiku have proven you to be a toothless tiger...

Hey! :p

Yes, Heiku was making this up when he posted it for you and you promptly ignored it.



So yeah, he was just "making stuff up." Except that he wasn't as can be seen right here. Do you ever tire of being proved wrong? I mean, if I was used as a punching bag by superior fighters, (Yes, Joc, myself, CTOAN, and even Heiku have proven you to be a toothless tiger) I'd tired of the beating. You keep coming back though, but why?

Oh come on...its a game CH and I play all the time. However, CH was not only referring to that but to other arguments that Heikoku has made over the months. Some of it probably was but not all of it.

Oh come on...its a game CH and I play all the time. However, CH was not only referring to that but to other arguments that Heikoku has made over the months. Some of it probably was but not all of it.

Right, but CH claiming others seem to make irrational things up is....ironic? Expected? Or both?

Right, but CH claiming others seem to make irrational things up is....ironic? Expected? Or both?

Considering how pro-Hillary he is....

it is Ironic. :D

Oh come on...its a game CH and I play all the time. However, CH was not only referring to that but to other arguments that Heikoku has made over the months. Some of it probably was but not all of it.

To be sure, I got goaded into getting pissed off by some of her supporters throughout this campaign, and my style suffered a bit, but MAKE UP stuff I didn't.

Hey! :p

There has to be some humor here.

To be sure, I got goaded into getting pissed off by some of her supporters throughout this campaign, and my style suffered a bit, but MAKE UP stuff I didn't.

I can agree to that mostly. It has taken great restraint to wade through the BS for so long.

Because Impeaching Bush would just be seen as a political ploy and not anything else. Why do you think before Clinton was Impeached there hadn't been one in 130+ years?

Nixon was close to being impeached but resigned before he officially was impeached.

Clinton was impeached based on an investigation that had no bearing on what the original investigation was.

This will be in that category.

So, you're saying that the Clinton impeachment trial was purely a political ploy? That's a pretty hefty accusation to level at the Republican party.

You say Clinton "was impeached based on an investigation that had no bearing on what the original investigation was. This will be in that category"... how, exactly? This procedure against Bush is clearly laid out in 36 points - some more 'serious' than others, but pretty much nothing that hasn't been shown to be true, that hasn't been shown to be in direct contradiction of protocol, law, or Constitution.

I don't believe you represent the average American. I think most people can probably see past a charade about getting your cock sucked, and see the difference between that and.. for example... suspending constitutional rights, or getting the nation involved in an illegal war.