QUOTE(Ryan J @ July 2 2008, 10:04 PM) 
Yes, his wife is EXTREMELY hot.
What, can Ryan and I be the only ones who find power sexy?
Full Version: Why Obama?
What, can Ryan and I be the only ones who find power sexy?
haha, well, I started all this you know....gotta be willing to put in the time.
I'm banning myself from this tomorrow so I can actually get some work done! Yikes, this being politically savvy is time-consuming!
And while you weren't exactly right on the disingeniousness (a word?) of my original question...I gotta admit that, upon reflection, I have started leaning more toward the idea that most Democrats are clueless....not all the way mind you. I know too many who are wonderful people-- but I'd started seeing them as wonderful people who don't have a clue. I'll work on it
but I don't see me giving up my 'official conservative membership card'. 
I'm banning myself from this tomorrow so I can actually get some work done! Yikes, this being politically savvy is time-consuming!
And while you weren't exactly right on the disingeniousness (a word?) of my original question...I gotta admit that, upon reflection, I have started leaning more toward the idea that most Democrats are clueless....not all the way mind you. I know too many who are wonderful people-- but I'd started seeing them as wonderful people who don't have a clue. I'll work on it
but I don't see me giving up my 'official conservative membership card'. QUOTE(Ginger @ July 2 2008, 10:18 PM)
haha, well, I started all this you know....gotta be willing to put in the time.
... I have started leaning more toward the idea that most Democrats are clueless....not all the way mind you. I know too many who are wonderful people-- but I'd started seeing them as wonderful people who don't have a clue. I'll work on it but I don't see me giving up my 'official conservative membership card'.
... I have started leaning more toward the idea that most Democrats are clueless....not all the way mind you. I know too many who are wonderful people-- but I'd started seeing them as wonderful people who don't have a clue. I'll work on it
but I don't see me giving up my 'official conservative membership card'. There are two basic types of political folks ---and this is true on both sides of the aisle.
Those who blindly believe... Joe Six Pack union guy who always votes dem, but is a lifetime NRA member, sends money to the Right to Life orgs and attends a strict bible church. But, he always votes dems cause he's a union man -- or, on the dem side, those who fall for the anyone but Bush line. Never mind looking at qualifications, core values, or experience.
The other type is what Ryan is, and I'm striving to be. Someone that thinks through an issue, and reaches a decision on a candidate based on how closely they come to our own set of core values.
For example: my core values are similar to yours, Ginger.
First: Lower taxes are good for the country. Since income is taxed at a federal level, and not wealth, we want to stimulate income and the acquisition of wealth. We will thereby grow the tax revenue to the government.
Second: smaller government. There are only two things the federal governement does well: National defense, and tax collection. Some things need to handled by a central body, but could be privatized with government oversight: eg Air Traffic Control. Having LESS government, means less money spent by the government.
Third: Federal assistance programs should be a safety net, not a lazy-boy recliner. The entitlement class that LBJ's Great Society built has to go away. Give a man a fish, ok in the short term, but we better be teaching him how to fish, so he stops taking fish away from those who caught their own.
Fourth: individual freedoms are more important than almost anything else, barring our core set of laws that protect life, health and property. Being gay, being religious, being a geek... are are more important to the individual and should never be denied to anyone as long as that behavior is not destructive to the individual, the society we live in, or to the state/country.
Fifth: People who enter our country illegally are not entitled to squat in this country, except a date with the court system, a pink prisioner jumpsuit, and three square meals a day under Sherrif Joe's wonderful new tent city in AZ.
Sadly, I don't have a presidential candidate before me that fits with my core beliefs.
And before anyone says Bob Barr... libertarian core values have a few things I don't care for. If they could drop those few social issues, they could take over the conservative movement in this country.
OK.... I've had my political fix for the day. Go back to your reguarly scheduled rants.
Troy, you're wonderful, and I'm going to start using your lines under #3.
I used to have a pair of pink boxers signed by Sheriff Joe, by the way.
I used to have a pair of pink boxers signed by Sheriff Joe, by the way.
universal health care is not free. you pay for it in your taxes.
i live in a country that has the NHS - national health services - i can go to a doctor whenever i want. even if its just a sore throat.
but if that sore throat turns into something else... i have to wait for my GP to refer me to a specialist. once i get referred to a specialist, i have to wait for an available appointment - sometimes that can take months.
by time i get to see the specialist, the sore throat could have turned into full blown cancer. had i seen the specialist on the day i saw my GP - i probably could have been saved.
i personally know people who are walking around in pain, waiting for their 'surgeries'. sometimes for years. there are many people here who have cancer, yet the NHS will not give them the treatment they need because they dont meet specific criteria - meaning - they dont feel they are worth spending the money on.
my husband has a leaky heart valve - some day he will require surgery - how long will he have to wait? will it be in time? by time he needs the surgery, will he still meet their criterium?
if the US turned to that type of system, it would be anarchy. but at the same time, it would help out people who are in desperate need of medical attention.
you would still need a private health care system as well. a lot of people here have private as well as the NHS - but they get that usually from an employer and usually its only the affluent employers that offer it.
i live in a country that has the NHS - national health services - i can go to a doctor whenever i want. even if its just a sore throat.
but if that sore throat turns into something else... i have to wait for my GP to refer me to a specialist. once i get referred to a specialist, i have to wait for an available appointment - sometimes that can take months.
by time i get to see the specialist, the sore throat could have turned into full blown cancer. had i seen the specialist on the day i saw my GP - i probably could have been saved.
i personally know people who are walking around in pain, waiting for their 'surgeries'. sometimes for years. there are many people here who have cancer, yet the NHS will not give them the treatment they need because they dont meet specific criteria - meaning - they dont feel they are worth spending the money on.
my husband has a leaky heart valve - some day he will require surgery - how long will he have to wait? will it be in time? by time he needs the surgery, will he still meet their criterium?
if the US turned to that type of system, it would be anarchy. but at the same time, it would help out people who are in desperate need of medical attention.
you would still need a private health care system as well. a lot of people here have private as well as the NHS - but they get that usually from an employer and usually its only the affluent employers that offer it.
QUOTE(Ginger @ July 2 2008, 10:18 PM)
haha, well, I started all this you know....gotta be willing to put in the time.
I'm banning myself from this tomorrow so I can actually get some work done! Yikes, this being politically savvy is time-consuming!
And while you weren't exactly right on the disingeniousness (a word?) of my original question...I gotta admit that, upon reflection, I have started leaning more toward the idea that most Democrats are clueless....not all the way mind you. I know too many who are wonderful people-- but I'd started seeing them as wonderful people who don't have a clue. I'll work on it but I don't see me giving up my 'official conservative membership card'.
I'm banning myself from this tomorrow so I can actually get some work done! Yikes, this being politically savvy is time-consuming!
And while you weren't exactly right on the disingeniousness (a word?) of my original question...I gotta admit that, upon reflection, I have started leaning more toward the idea that most Democrats are clueless....not all the way mind you. I know too many who are wonderful people-- but I'd started seeing them as wonderful people who don't have a clue. I'll work on it
but I don't see me giving up my 'official conservative membership card'. Not sure why you asked the question then, if you can't see the other side after 6 pages.
Did you ask to prove your "rightness" or because you were genuinely interested in other views- as you first stated... 
QUOTE(Ginger @ July 3 2008, 03:18 AM)
haha, well, I started all this you know....gotta be willing to put in the time.
I'm banning myself from this tomorrow so I can actually get some work done! Yikes, this being politically savvy is time-consuming!
And while you weren't exactly right on the disingeniousness (a word?) of my original question...I gotta admit that, upon reflection, I have started leaning more toward the idea that most Democrats are clueless....not all the way mind you. I know too many who are wonderful people-- but I'd started seeing them as wonderful people who don't have a clue. I'll work on it but I don't see me giving up my 'official conservative membership card'.
I'm banning myself from this tomorrow so I can actually get some work done! Yikes, this being politically savvy is time-consuming!
And while you weren't exactly right on the disingeniousness (a word?) of my original question...I gotta admit that, upon reflection, I have started leaning more toward the idea that most Democrats are clueless....not all the way mind you. I know too many who are wonderful people-- but I'd started seeing them as wonderful people who don't have a clue. I'll work on it
but I don't see me giving up my 'official conservative membership card'. and most republicans are . . . nope, wont go there.
geeez because democrats dont see it as you do, they are clueless? seriously?
QUOTE(the real tami @ July 3 2008, 07:11 AM)
geeez because democrats dont see it as you do, they are clueless?
That should be a statement -- not a question.
QUOTE(Chelo @ July 3 2008, 07:04 AM)
Not sure why you asked the question then, if you can't see the other side after 6 pages. Did you ask to prove your "rightness" or because you were genuinely interested in other views- as you first stated...
Did you ask to prove your "rightness" or because you were genuinely interested in other views- as you first stated... there's a difference between seeing the other side... and agreeing on principle with them.
Ryan and I have fun in our "discussions". I think we both enjoy baiting each other. I definately do so for both FUN, and to learn what he is thinking on certain issues.
Will I ever agree with him on Obama? HELL NO! Not until one of us changes our core beliefs.
What I've found is that most people blindly follow the media's lead. "Republicans are evil!" and don't think for themselves.
For example... anyone who thinks that we're spending way too much on freeing Iraq from tyrany, and helping them maintain their fledgling democracy -- but insist on governement paying for bad healthcare for everyone. Think through the cost factor, and as Tami pointed out the drop in the standard of care for the average patient. THINK your way through that one. There's a big reason that folks with money still come to the USA for healthcare treatments from abroad. They cannot get what they need in a timely fashion in their own country.
Obama's healthcare ideas sound nice. I went to his website and started to go down his list. Two things started occuring in my thought process as I looked at the littany of what he wants to do...
1. That will cost the taxpayers even more... or
2. That will cost the insurance companies even more... which means it will cost the taxpayers even more.
Guess what... under Obama, the cost of healthcare is going UP!
Think your way through the issues. Don't "Feel Good" about what he says. THINK! Don't support him because he's not Bush. THINK!
PS: McCain, nor Bush are not really conservative. They're what the libs have been wanting. Middle of the road, with a few conservative issues (national defense), but mostly in the center.
You know Troy- I think I'm just tired of people telling me to "THINK" because I am an Obama supporter. Do I look like some dumb lamb to the slaughter or something? LOL.
I respect people's choices. If you're going to ask to be filled in, then respect different point of views.
And all that "the liberals want you to believe" and "the republicans would have you think"- (insert charlie brown teacher horn noise here). I think for myself. Nasty divisiveness on both sides, is all that is.
I don't get why these threads come up- no one is changing their mind because of them.
You got me? Where's that slice of pizza you owe me?
I respect people's choices. If you're going to ask to be filled in, then respect different point of views.
And all that "the liberals want you to believe" and "the republicans would have you think"- (insert charlie brown teacher horn noise here). I think for myself. Nasty divisiveness on both sides, is all that is.
I don't get why these threads come up- no one is changing their mind because of them.
You got me? Where's that slice of pizza you owe me?
That is something that needs to be re-iterated. Most people arguing in this thread for the Conservatives are exactly that: Conservative (or mildly Libertarian).
BUSH is NOT conservative. With the exception of the war, he was very much similar to a Democrat. He created a HUGE increase in government spending with a large increase in social programs. McCain is even less conservative than Bush and has a large democratic following for good reason: he meets their core beliefs.
I haven't seen anyone in the thread say "Go Republicans" so make sure no one in here is associating those that are "Anti-Obama" as people who are "Pro-McCain" (although some people may support him).
I certainly am NOT pro-McCain and have no intention on voting for him. Just wanted to highlight Troy's last "PS"
In the end, we are talking a lot about people's core beliefs. Similar to fighting over religion (sortof). Long story short:
If you are on the far left (liberal), Obama is your guy.
If you are in the middle or slightly left, McCain is your guy.
If you are on the right (conservative or libertarian), then start looking at 3rd party ideas like Barr or the Constitution Party. If neither of those fit your bill, then you put on your "Screwed '08" shirt and start planning for 2012.
BUSH is NOT conservative. With the exception of the war, he was very much similar to a Democrat. He created a HUGE increase in government spending with a large increase in social programs. McCain is even less conservative than Bush and has a large democratic following for good reason: he meets their core beliefs.
I haven't seen anyone in the thread say "Go Republicans" so make sure no one in here is associating those that are "Anti-Obama" as people who are "Pro-McCain" (although some people may support him).
I certainly am NOT pro-McCain and have no intention on voting for him. Just wanted to highlight Troy's last "PS"
In the end, we are talking a lot about people's core beliefs. Similar to fighting over religion (sortof). Long story short:
If you are on the far left (liberal), Obama is your guy.
If you are in the middle or slightly left, McCain is your guy.
If you are on the right (conservative or libertarian), then start looking at 3rd party ideas like Barr or the Constitution Party. If neither of those fit your bill, then you put on your "Screwed '08" shirt and start planning for 2012.
QUOTE(Chelo @ July 3 2008, 07:04 AM)
Not sure why you asked the question then, if you can't see the other side after 6 pages. Did you ask to prove your "rightness" or because you were genuinely interested in other views- as you first stated...
Okay, ban isn't working.....I asked the question 'cause I'm seriously wondering. I think you read my post wrong. I said that I had begun to think of Dems this way....past tense. That it kinda snuck up on me and that now that I realize it, I can be wary. That's all. Intellectually speaking, I KNOW that some Democrats are smart, caring folks....I've just run into a lot of the "Bush Lied, People Died" types lately who won't tell me why they think the way they do.Not interested in proving my "rightness" (although I'm glad you think I'm right.... Did you ask to prove your "rightness" or because you were genuinely interested in other views- as you first stated... sorry, just teasing!) Not sure what is right when it comes to this election. *sigh*QUOTE(the real tami @ July 3 2008, 07:11 AM)
and most republicans are . . . nope, wont go there. geeez because democrats dont see it as you do, they are clueless? seriously?
maybe some. but i usually reserve this thought for folks that can't do anything but quote the spoon-fed lines...you know, ones who don't think it out for themselves. geeez because democrats dont see it as you do, they are clueless? seriously?QUOTE(JimCook @ July 3 2008, 07:52 AM)
That should be a statement -- not a question.
haha , you're a funny, funny manQUOTE(Troy Hill @ July 3 2008, 07:55 AM)
there's a difference between seeing the other side... and agreeing on principle with them.Ryan and I have fun in our "discussions". I think we both enjoy baiting each other. I definately do so for both FUN, and to learn what he is thinking on certain issues.Will I ever agree with him on Obama? HELL NO! Not until one of us changes our core beliefs.What I've found is that most people blindly follow the media's lead. "Republicans are evil!" and don't think for themselves.For example... anyone who thinks that we're spending way too much on freeing Iraq from tyrany, and helping them maintain their fledgling democracy -- but insist on governement paying for bad healthcare for everyone. Think through the cost factor, and as Tami pointed out the drop in the standard of care for the average patient. THINK your way through that one. There's a big reason that folks with money still come to the USA for healthcare treatments from abroad. They cannot get what they need in a timely fashion in their own country.Obama's healthcare ideas sound nice. I went to his website and started to go down his list. Two things started occuring in my thought process as I looked at the littany of what he wants to do... 1. That will cost the taxpayers even more... or2. That will cost the insurance companies even more... which means it will cost the taxpayers even more.Guess what... under Obama, the cost of healthcare is going UP!Think your way through the issues. Don't "Feel Good" about what he says. THINK! Don't support him because he's not Bush. THINK!PS: McCain, nor Bush are not really conservative. They're what the libs have been wanting. Middle of the road, with a few conservative issues (national defense), but mostly in the center.
Nice thoughts, Troy! Especially the "Don't Feel Good" - Think one.
QUOTE(Chris Harvey @ July 3 2008, 07:29 AM)
That is something that needs to be re-iterated. Most people arguing in this thread for the Conservatives are exactly that: Conservative (or mildly Libertarian).
BUSH is NOT conservative. With the exception of the war, he was very much similar to a Democrat. He created a HUGE increase in government spending with a large increase in social programs. McCain is even less conservative than Bush and has a large democratic following for good reason: he meets their core beliefs.
I haven't seen anyone in the thread say "Go Republicans" so make sure no one in here is associating those that are "Anti-Obama" as people who are "Pro-McCain" (although some people may support him).
I certainly am NOT pro-McCain and have no intention on voting for him. Just wanted to highlight Troy's last "PS"
In the end, we are talking a lot about people's core beliefs. Similar to fighting over religion (sortof). Long story short:
If you are on the far left (liberal), Obama is your guy.
If you are in the middle or slightly left, McCain is your guy.
If you are on the right (conservative or libertarian), then start looking at 3rd party ideas like Barr or the Constitution Party. If neither of those fit your bill, then you put on your "Screwed '08" shirt and start planning for 2012.
BUSH is NOT conservative. With the exception of the war, he was very much similar to a Democrat. He created a HUGE increase in government spending with a large increase in social programs. McCain is even less conservative than Bush and has a large democratic following for good reason: he meets their core beliefs.
I haven't seen anyone in the thread say "Go Republicans" so make sure no one in here is associating those that are "Anti-Obama" as people who are "Pro-McCain" (although some people may support him).
I certainly am NOT pro-McCain and have no intention on voting for him. Just wanted to highlight Troy's last "PS"
In the end, we are talking a lot about people's core beliefs. Similar to fighting over religion (sortof). Long story short:
If you are on the far left (liberal), Obama is your guy.
If you are in the middle or slightly left, McCain is your guy.
If you are on the right (conservative or libertarian), then start looking at 3rd party ideas like Barr or the Constitution Party. If neither of those fit your bill, then you put on your "Screwed '08" shirt and start planning for 2012.
Well said, Chris.
Obama, McCain... eh, different sides of the same coin. They're both CFR schleps that will lead this nation down the path to losing her sovereignty even more than she has already. The choice really is, how fast do you want to lose your freedoms?
Change you can believe in? HA! They all say stuff like that, and the only change we ever get is for the worse.
Now, where can I get my " Screwed in '08 " shirt?
I'm going to wear it proudly in my hollowed out bunker while my family and I eat granola bars, suck our thumbs and wait for the bombs to fall...
QUOTE(Chelo @ July 3 2008, 08:24 AM)
You know Troy- I think I'm just tired of people telling me to "THINK" because I am an Obama supporter. Do I look like some dumb lamb to the slaughter or something? LOL.
I respect people's choices. If you're going to ask to be filled in, then respect different point of views.
And all that "the liberals want you to believe" and "the republicans would have you think"- (insert charlie brown teacher horn noise here). I think for myself. Nasty divisiveness on both sides, is all that is.
I don't get why these threads come up- no one is changing their mind because of them.
You got me? Where's that slice of pizza you owe me?
I respect people's choices. If you're going to ask to be filled in, then respect different point of views.
And all that "the liberals want you to believe" and "the republicans would have you think"- (insert charlie brown teacher horn noise here). I think for myself. Nasty divisiveness on both sides, is all that is.
I don't get why these threads come up- no one is changing their mind because of them.
You got me? Where's that slice of pizza you owe me?
I dunno, Chelo. I'm changing my views on a few fronts.....really. My goal here is an understanding. I'm hoping others (you know the hundreds of others who are reading this thread, but for some reason aren't comfortable in commenting on it) will get something out of the discussion, too.
As for people telling you to 'think', I'm afraid you are the victim of republican generalizations....it's not right, but it is human nature. Works the same on the other side of the aisle as well. And I'm not sure how we can get past it.
QUOTE(DawnHaas @ July 3 2008, 12:31 AM)
I did not read all the posts but SERIOUSLY what about the whole RACE issue. I am all about having an African American president but I dont care how much he says that he is not a racist. His WIFE in front of millions called white people WHITEIES and then his pastor of TWENTY years spoke awful things. TWENTY years he sat there and listened to this pastor. If it was the other way around there is NO WAY McCain would be a candidate.
I dont know a lot about politics but this scares me.
I dont know a lot about politics but this scares me.
you should not be all about having an african american president - you should be about having the right person for the job. race should NOT play a role in your decision.
QUOTE(Ginger @ July 2 2008, 10:18 PM)
And while you weren't exactly right on the disingeniousness (a word?) of my original question...I gotta admit that, upon reflection, I have started leaning more toward the idea that most Democrats are clueless....not all the way mind you. I know too many who are wonderful people-- but I'd started seeing them as wonderful people who don't have a clue. I'll work on it but I don't see me giving up my 'official conservative membership card'.
but I don't see me giving up my 'official conservative membership card'. Yes, "disingenuous" is a word. It means "lacking in genuine intent". I am really glad you posted this because it confirms my thoughts about where you might be coming from both in terms of your intention in posting the question but also in your inability to metabolize new information when it comes to most of the major platform issues for both parties. Yep, you drank the koolaid just like some of my crazy hippie friends who think Republicans are all evil selfish bastards.I don't think this is a Republican trait or a Democratic trait. I think it's just plain old bullheadedness.
It shocks me that so many people in this country hew almost religiously to an entire political platform having built some sort of internal consensus that it is a logical extension of a mindset or worldview. It's not. The "conservative" platform and the G.O.P. has been a model in flux for many many years as has the "liberal" Democratic. Both parties have always been a COALITION. The GOP right now is one of religious institutions and fiscal conservatives and national security hawks (there is part of the libertarian ideal in there too, but both parties claim some of their membership depending on the issue.) The liberals are a union, environmental, civil-liberties (see libertarian above), anti-war, anti-poverty coalition. Of course this is an oversimplification of the issues, but you get the idea. More recently, both parties have shrink-wrapped the Coalitions together and sold them as an ideological package while ignoring the conflicts between them.
I hate to burst some bubbles but if you wholeheartedly agree with almost every single major platform issue of a party, you are a sheep and a sucker who is being used by said party. Additionally, if you are willing to paint every person who self-identifies as a democrat as "clueless" then you necessarily make yourself more ignorant of important issues and ideas. Like I said, your initial question was disingenuous. I don't believe you honestly came in looking to have a dialogue and allow the tiniest possibility that you mind might be changed. You came in to try and swat down others' rationales for voting for a president.
Sorry Ginger. I love your photography, but it's akin to saying "Canon is the ONLY camera that works and Nikon SUCKS!" It's not intellectually honest. Both cameras have their own benefits. It may be easier for people to justify their choices by completely negating the other option's benefits, but when it comes down to it, it doesn't change the fact that there are benefits and the existence of both necessarily creates a stronger product for both sides through competition.What I think we saw in the 2006 election and what we are seeing with Obama's ascent to popularity is the political market correcting itself as 6 years of relative Republican coalition dominance seems to have produced some results which a lot of people are confused and frustrated by and feel duped.
People are barking about Bush not being a "true Conservative" which I think is a misonomer because such a thing cannot exist. There are too many conflicts inside both parties ideologies to allow someone to stand for every member group of the coalition.
QUOTE(Troy Hill @ July 3 2008, 07:55 AM)
What I've found is that most people blindly follow the media's lead. "Republicans are evil!" and don't think for themselves.
Troy...shhh...remember, I won.
QUOTE(Chris Harvey @ July 3 2008, 08:29 AM)
BUSH is NOT conservative. With the exception of the war, he was very much similar to a Democrat.
Yeah, that's why Democrats are getting ready to change the Constitution to give him four more years.
QUOTE(Chris Harvey @ July 3 2008, 08:29 AM)
McCain is even less conservative than Bush and has a large democratic following
Wow...that would be crazy if it were true, wouldn't it? Buuuuut...it's not. He's successfully courted many independent voters but has less successful in courting some foreign-policy hawks inside the Democratic Party. It feels kind of dramatic and power to say things like this I am sure, Chris, but it's hyperbolic and it doesn't match that facts on the ground. The vast majority of self-described Democratic voters in this contest are supporting Obama. Your confusion about this might lie in the following fractured and kind of amazing claim:
QUOTE(Chris Harvey @ July 3 2008, 08:29 AM)
If you are on the far left (liberal), Obama is your guy.
If you are in the middle or slightly left, McCain is your guy.
If you are on the right (conservative or libertarian), then start looking at 3rd party ideas like Barr or the Constitution Party.
If you are in the middle or slightly left, McCain is your guy.
If you are on the right (conservative or libertarian), then start looking at 3rd party ideas like Barr or the Constitution Party.
And then Bob Barr will huff and puff and blooooooow the house down. See...what has happened here is you've conflated your PERCEPTION as TRUTH. Common mistake in hyperpolitics. Let's be clear...the "middle" or "moderate" or "centrist" is necessarily...well..in the middle or center. The Left is relatively "left" of the center and the Right is "right of center.
So, perhaps our national political ideologies are shifting, but I hate to break it to you, the center does NOT coalesce around you. It's kind of amazing political narcisism on your part. Any claim to be left, right or center necessarily requires you to look at a coupla polls. Again, not intellectually honest...but oooohhhh...it feels so good.
QUOTE(Johnny @ July 3 2008, 10:46 AM)
Now, where can I get my " Screwed in '08 " shirt?I'm going to wear it proudly in my hollowed out bunker while my family and I eat granola bars, suck our thumbs and wait for the bombs to fall...
My prayers have been answered.Now all we have to do is to wait for his internet to go out and my plan will be complete.
Well I guess I'm a little late to this thread, but what the heck, I can't resist.
Regardless of who you support, there is an economical law that most people miss. Rich people and Corporations DO NOT PAY Taxes. Regardless of how much they are taxed by the government. What happens to their taxes? They get passed onto the consumer. Who is the consumer? Mostly, it's your every day people.
Just like we, as wedding photographers, pass our costs along to the consumer, _________ corporations do the exact same thing based on how much taxes they pay.
Regardless of who you support, there is an economical law that most people miss. Rich people and Corporations DO NOT PAY Taxes. Regardless of how much they are taxed by the government. What happens to their taxes? They get passed onto the consumer. Who is the consumer? Mostly, it's your every day people.
Just like we, as wedding photographers, pass our costs along to the consumer, _________ corporations do the exact same thing based on how much taxes they pay.
QUOTE(Ryan J @ July 3 2008, 10:57 AM)
Troy...shhh...remember, I won.
Do your happy dance now, Lib Boy!
Bobby Jindal is gonna kick Hillary's but in 2012. 
Matt
If you want balance....................... Just a thought...
The democrats have the senate in hand. The congress is democrat and the supreme court is almost split even. If the presidency goes to a democrat there will be no balance at all. If the senate goes to 60 senators democratic... (super majority) we will have a mess on our hands. Not good for either party.
The good thing about the clinton years is we had republican control of the senate and congress which balanced out Clinton and limited what policies could be passed. If it were not for the internet boom, cell phone boom, and Y2K computer upgrade boom... and Nafta and outsourcing our Jobs to China for cheep goods....our economy would have been very stagnant. Checkout Walmarts stock graph from 1992.
To me balance is not doing a 180. I do not want to raise taxes at this delicate time in our economy, surrender around the world, and I do not think the courts should go any further to the left at all. This country is crazy enough and they just voted 5-4 that we have the right to own guns. That is unbelievable. To me it is crazy to think we are one vote away from not allowing private ownership of guns. The 2nd amendment and cannot be any clearer.
Anyway, hate to be political but I am sick and tired of things going on in this country also, but it is above blaming everything on one person or the president.
There are very serious issues that need to be corrected but our contry has lost it's spine and there are a majority people who want to vote for their own pocket book and take from someone else and not vote on good american priciples. They want the freedom to do whatever they choose, but not do what is right. They want to vote for change vote for the kids, thier educaiton, their environment, but they want to abort them at the same time. Today we need to vote for what is right for the future and not what is right for the lazy and what I need, but what is right.
Education Bush has given Billions more to education establishment (50% more and there is no evidence of improvement in governement schools)
We are pulling our kids out this fall.
Bush has greatly increased spending and if we want change we need to do a 180 and reduce our budget to about where it was under Clinton. That would be great change, but it will never happen under O'bama or McCain.
Troy
If you want balance....................... Just a thought...
The democrats have the senate in hand. The congress is democrat and the supreme court is almost split even. If the presidency goes to a democrat there will be no balance at all. If the senate goes to 60 senators democratic... (super majority) we will have a mess on our hands. Not good for either party.
The good thing about the clinton years is we had republican control of the senate and congress which balanced out Clinton and limited what policies could be passed. If it were not for the internet boom, cell phone boom, and Y2K computer upgrade boom... and Nafta and outsourcing our Jobs to China for cheep goods....our economy would have been very stagnant. Checkout Walmarts stock graph from 1992.
To me balance is not doing a 180. I do not want to raise taxes at this delicate time in our economy, surrender around the world, and I do not think the courts should go any further to the left at all. This country is crazy enough and they just voted 5-4 that we have the right to own guns. That is unbelievable. To me it is crazy to think we are one vote away from not allowing private ownership of guns. The 2nd amendment and cannot be any clearer.
Anyway, hate to be political but I am sick and tired of things going on in this country also, but it is above blaming everything on one person or the president.
There are very serious issues that need to be corrected but our contry has lost it's spine and there are a majority people who want to vote for their own pocket book and take from someone else and not vote on good american priciples. They want the freedom to do whatever they choose, but not do what is right. They want to vote for change vote for the kids, thier educaiton, their environment, but they want to abort them at the same time. Today we need to vote for what is right for the future and not what is right for the lazy and what I need, but what is right.
Education Bush has given Billions more to education establishment (50% more and there is no evidence of improvement in governement schools)
We are pulling our kids out this fall.
Bush has greatly increased spending and if we want change we need to do a 180 and reduce our budget to about where it was under Clinton. That would be great change, but it will never happen under O'bama or McCain.
Troy
QUOTE(Matt Antonino @ July 2 2008, 11:55 AM)
I'm a conservative voting for Obama.
One of the most important issues to ME is balance. I'm 100% sure having done politics & law for 7 yrs of my life that balance is necessary. Sometimes one party, sometimes the other. What matters is balance. Supreme Court needs balance. Laws need balance. The direction of Congress needs balance. And most importantly, the White House needs balance. Without it, we stagnate. Things change too fast one way or the other.
Say on Pay is a good idea.
Obama supports merit pay for teachers. He also wants higher teacher salaries, paid for by limiting our trips to Mars & stuff.
Obama introduced the BioFuels Security Act to reduce our oil consumption.
As far as health care, do a poll - how many self employed full time photographers have health insurance? I'd support ANY affordable health care right now. It's about $600 a MONTH here for insurance. 47 million people (out of 240 million) would go from UNCOVERED to covered by something - yes, I'll take that.
Obama supports environmental cleanup, moving toward cleaner energy, control of assault weapons, embryonic stem cell research that could cure or assist in curing MANY major illnesses...
I have *never* voted for a Democrat - but I will be for Obama. He's a DECENT human - th first such Presidential candidate we've had at least in my lifetime.
The first major obstacle to turning the economy around is turning around the economic policies - which means a change in the White House. Obama's election gets us moving a different way quicker than a McCain election.
One of the most important issues to ME is balance. I'm 100% sure having done politics & law for 7 yrs of my life that balance is necessary. Sometimes one party, sometimes the other. What matters is balance. Supreme Court needs balance. Laws need balance. The direction of Congress needs balance. And most importantly, the White House needs balance. Without it, we stagnate. Things change too fast one way or the other.
Say on Pay is a good idea.
Obama supports merit pay for teachers. He also wants higher teacher salaries, paid for by limiting our trips to Mars & stuff.
Obama introduced the BioFuels Security Act to reduce our oil consumption.
As far as health care, do a poll - how many self employed full time photographers have health insurance? I'd support ANY affordable health care right now. It's about $600 a MONTH here for insurance. 47 million people (out of 240 million) would go from UNCOVERED to covered by something - yes, I'll take that.
Obama supports environmental cleanup, moving toward cleaner energy, control of assault weapons, embryonic stem cell research that could cure or assist in curing MANY major illnesses...
I have *never* voted for a Democrat - but I will be for Obama. He's a DECENT human - th first such Presidential candidate we've had at least in my lifetime.
The first major obstacle to turning the economy around is turning around the economic policies - which means a change in the White House. Obama's election gets us moving a different way quicker than a McCain election.
But we wait here too for health care. Sure not as drastic timelines to see a specialist - but we wait for insurance approvals and appointments. My Mom currently needs surgery on her eyes. She just saw the specialist now she has to wait for insurance approval and she's looking at November/December by the time all that goes through. I can't get in to see the gynecologist until December. I had a CT a few weeks ago for a kidney stone and I waited four weeks to get in. This is in NYC "the center of the world". When my Dad had his bypass surgery he had to wait two months until it was approved - he sat around for two months knowing he could have a heart attack at any moment. My neighbor had a aneurism near his kidney and had to wait six months for insurance approval, and it was denied. Just don't tell me we don't wait for things here due to insurance.
for those opting for socialized health insurance...have you ever been to a DMV?
QUOTE(the real tami @ July 3 2008, 10:49 AM)
you should not be all about having an african american president - you should be about having the right person for the job. race should NOT play a role in your decision.
*nodding*
QUOTE(TroyPhotog @ July 3 2008, 11:46 AM)
If you want balance....................... Just a thought...
See, I think what most moderate thinkers on both sides are looking to accomplish is to roll back some of the more aggressive expansions of presidential power in our country and make sure that all voices are being heard. Simply creating a deadlock "balance" will preserve the status quo and freeze those changes in place. I appreciate the sentiment of your argument, but it is not really a reflection of create a stronger balance inside our current domestic and international policies.
QUOTE(TroyPhotog @ July 3 2008, 11:46 AM)
The democrats have the senate in hand.
Not even close. There is little or no capacity to override fillibusters or a presidential veto, much less the signing statements which have become the hallmark of the Bush presidency.
QUOTE(TroyPhotog @ July 3 2008, 11:46 AM)
...the supreme court is almost split even.
But has a very conservative Chief Justice. That's no small thing.
QUOTE(TroyPhotog @ July 3 2008, 11:46 AM)
I do not want to raise taxes at this delicate time in our economy,
I know, but we are fighting two wars right now and we haven't started paying for them. We need to balance our budget. It's going to take cuts in services AND increased taxes. Any other solution is a fairytale which passes an insurmountable burden on to future generations.
QUOTE(TroyPhotog @ July 3 2008, 11:46 AM)
...surrender around the world,
At some point, we are going to have to hand Iraq off to the Iraqis because our presence there, whether we agree or not, is starting to be viewed as an imperial domination by the citizens of the country. They are going to have to stand up and take over their government. Leaving Iraq isn't surrendering...it's handing Iraq's fate over to its own people. Every moderate analyst I've heard has said that the simple act of setting a deadline for American withdrawal is line with what it takes for Middle Eastern politics to move into shape. This stabilization effort was done on the cheap without enough troops or effort to court serious Middle Eastern Support of the effort. It's the danger of fighting an almost unilateral war. You have to go it alone and the challenges we face in Iraq are beyond the capacity of one nation to solve, especially in a region so often hostile to American interests. If you want to call it "surrendering" you can, but the best-looking endgame for Iraq looks nothing like post-war Germany or Japan. It just won't work out like that. Not sure what you were expecting though.
QUOTE(TroyPhotog @ July 3 2008, 11:46 AM)
and I do not think the courts should go any further to the left at all.
Wait...I thought the courts were balanced? Which are they? So, after 6 years of Republican dominance in every branch of government, you think that Democrats aren't deserving of the same chance? The pendulum swings both ways, my brother.
QUOTE(TroyPhotog @ July 3 2008, 11:46 AM)
The 2nd amendment and cannot be any clearer.
Unfortunately it's not that clear. It may have been intended to be clearer but the whole issue of the "militia" mucks things up. If the framers of the Constitution had written simply that AMericans had the "right to bear arms" period that would have been clearer but for some reason they chose to insert that whole thing about militias and it's not clear. I appreciate your own interpretation and see how you arrive at it, but it's not the only rational way to interepret the ammendment. It's poorly written that ammendment.
QUOTE(TroyPhotog @ July 3 2008, 11:46 AM)
Education Bush has given Billions more to education establishment (50% more and there is no evidence of improvement in governement schools)
We are pulling our kids out this fall.
We are pulling our kids out this fall.
Actually, The Education Bush has promised pretty resonable sums to support No Child Left Behind but has consistently fallen short of those funding promises, falling 13-16 Billion Dollars short of the nearly 40 Billion he has promised each your for the the last four years. And there is actually still substantial improvement in most standardized tests.
Again, I am challenging people to really STOP listening to the hyperbolic pronouncements coming from pundits on both sides. There is an enormous amount of information available to you coming from less partisan sources all over the web. Please do a little bit of homework before you repeat what you hear.
If we really want to hold our politicians and government accountable and make sure things are working, we need to come at them with real facts and figures, not hyperbole and false allegory. It's time to expect the same accuracy from ourselves as we so often demand from the words of our politicians.
OK, Troy #2
It's time for you to experience all that is RYAN!
It's time for you to experience all that is RYAN!
QUOTE(stephen seward @ July 3 2008, 12:05 PM)
for those opting for socialized health insurance...have you ever been to a DMV?
And Stephen, folks in Germany pay HALF (through their taxes) what our nation pays for their health care. And the doctors make housecalls. I am not saying either system is without problems, but our system is failing the people of our country while the corporations which feeds on the system are flourishing. The market is not correcting itself except that people are unable to maintain a very low standard of health.
It's been proven again and again that simple checkups which are avoided out of fear of costs are HALF as expensive as the avoidable ailments which result from the lack of early diagnosis.
Again, I am not claiming that socialized medicine is THE answer of answers, but it appears in industrialized Western countries which have adopted it to be cheaper and more effective at providing necessary services. Some of us think it has something to do with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Some disagree.
Hey Ryan,
I'll throw this into the monkey bin here on OSP for further debate. Tell me what works and what is just happy smoke:
The way I see it, the free market has been almost 100 % removed from the US health care industry. So, we are stuck with rising prices and scarcity of services.
Plus, for the vast majority of consumers, it is "someone else pays to fix my problems"
As such, everyone wants free health care. But, there are businesses attatched to health care that need to make profits.
We've got federal and state oversight -- which is a very good thing. It works in the patient's interest almost all the time.
But, we still have people wanting health care for free -- eg: at no serious out of pocket cost.
My wife works in the pharmaceutical research support biz. She's very aware of what it takes to bring a promising drug to market, in terms of dollars, work hours, and pleasing the federal gods of medicine. Those expenses won't go away. Nor will they become cheaper without limiting the oversight of the fed government -- which would not be a good thing for the patients. We want to know that the drugs and proceedures are mostly safe and the risks are known, and can be managed.
Plus, the other cost is tort action. A sue crazy public, and a strong trial lawyers association do their best to keep the courtrooms full of malpractice cases.
I've sat on a Medical Malpractice Jury, and had some great eye opening experiences. One of which was a single juror that kept saying "She died... someone has to pay!" Not a very good attitude, but an understandable one. The exact attitude that brought the family to seek a malpractice case. In the end, the rest of the jury convinced our one stand out, emotional juror -- bad things happen to good people. The medical professionals did not break the standard of care, so a not guilty verdict was returned. She didn't like it, but she couldn't explain why the doctors had to pay -- except that the girl died. It was pure emotion on her part.
My thought is to work back toward a system where people are responsible for their own health care costs, with supplemental dollars -- something like a medical savings plan. Get the choice for what to spend when, back in their hands. Let people make their own choices (with bonus dollars being added to their savings plans for wellness checks and basic care things like immunizations so they don't skip the visits to keep them healthy).
This does two things... cuts down on governmental oversight on the fees charged -- take the insurance aspect out of basic care. Let people drive a free market -- and makes people more cost conscious on how they spend their medical dollars.
Second, limit tort lawyers to not receive their huge chunks of any awards. Make them work on an hourly basis, and cap the bonus bucks they get from a big settlement. Say 5 to 10 percent of the settlement as a bonus over their hourly charge.
Thoughts? (I'm going back to editing my wedding now.)
I'll throw this into the monkey bin here on OSP for further debate. Tell me what works and what is just happy smoke:
The way I see it, the free market has been almost 100 % removed from the US health care industry. So, we are stuck with rising prices and scarcity of services.
Plus, for the vast majority of consumers, it is "someone else pays to fix my problems"
As such, everyone wants free health care. But, there are businesses attatched to health care that need to make profits.
We've got federal and state oversight -- which is a very good thing. It works in the patient's interest almost all the time.
But, we still have people wanting health care for free -- eg: at no serious out of pocket cost.
My wife works in the pharmaceutical research support biz. She's very aware of what it takes to bring a promising drug to market, in terms of dollars, work hours, and pleasing the federal gods of medicine. Those expenses won't go away. Nor will they become cheaper without limiting the oversight of the fed government -- which would not be a good thing for the patients. We want to know that the drugs and proceedures are mostly safe and the risks are known, and can be managed.
Plus, the other cost is tort action. A sue crazy public, and a strong trial lawyers association do their best to keep the courtrooms full of malpractice cases.
I've sat on a Medical Malpractice Jury, and had some great eye opening experiences. One of which was a single juror that kept saying "She died... someone has to pay!" Not a very good attitude, but an understandable one. The exact attitude that brought the family to seek a malpractice case. In the end, the rest of the jury convinced our one stand out, emotional juror -- bad things happen to good people. The medical professionals did not break the standard of care, so a not guilty verdict was returned. She didn't like it, but she couldn't explain why the doctors had to pay -- except that the girl died. It was pure emotion on her part.
My thought is to work back toward a system where people are responsible for their own health care costs, with supplemental dollars -- something like a medical savings plan. Get the choice for what to spend when, back in their hands. Let people make their own choices (with bonus dollars being added to their savings plans for wellness checks and basic care things like immunizations so they don't skip the visits to keep them healthy).
This does two things... cuts down on governmental oversight on the fees charged -- take the insurance aspect out of basic care. Let people drive a free market -- and makes people more cost conscious on how they spend their medical dollars.
Second, limit tort lawyers to not receive their huge chunks of any awards. Make them work on an hourly basis, and cap the bonus bucks they get from a big settlement. Say 5 to 10 percent of the settlement as a bonus over their hourly charge.
Thoughts? (I'm going back to editing my wedding now.)
regarding universal health: a single payer system would probably be best in terms of keeping costs down for everyone, mainly because the size of the risk pool would allow for enough diversity so that the healthier folks make up for those who spend more. Plus, with more people having regular, quality access to primary care would create a healthier American, further reducing healthcare costs. Currently, we spend more than any other industrialized country in the world, yet rank lowest in many health indicators. Those who have access get good care, but too many folks don't have access to the quality healthcare we have.
The employer based model of health insurance is dying; you're finding fewer employers providing benefits and many are cutting back. So that alone isn't the solution. The private market, left unchecked, finds ways to shortchange people.
As Ryan said, there isn't just one answer, and socialized medicine isn't necessarily the answer. Countries have varying success with it at different levels. But ensuring that everyone has access to primary care services should be a priority we should all care about, regardless of whether it's a private or publicly funded solution. "life" in our constitution should include "healthy life" A healthier America means more of us are working, a healthier America means we control the rising costs by preventing illness instead of expensively treating illness.
The current system just doesn't cut it.
The employer based model of health insurance is dying; you're finding fewer employers providing benefits and many are cutting back. So that alone isn't the solution. The private market, left unchecked, finds ways to shortchange people.
As Ryan said, there isn't just one answer, and socialized medicine isn't necessarily the answer. Countries have varying success with it at different levels. But ensuring that everyone has access to primary care services should be a priority we should all care about, regardless of whether it's a private or publicly funded solution. "life" in our constitution should include "healthy life" A healthier America means more of us are working, a healthier America means we control the rising costs by preventing illness instead of expensively treating illness.
The current system just doesn't cut it.
Okay, gloves are coming off 'cause you basically just called me a liar....not done, my friend. 
I sincerely think that you may be having a bad day or something.....I'd be careful throwing words like narcissistic at me, I might have to pull out my playground lyrics "I'm like rubber and you're like glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!" (Nothin' like a little regression to make one feel better!) Edit: So you're not actually calling me full of myself.... I couldn't for the life of me figure out what I'd said to deserve such a tongue-lashing. I still think you were reading too much into my admission, but I'm cooling off a bit knowing that the last bit is not directed at me.
QUOTE(Ryan J @ July 3 2008, 10:57 AM)
Yes, "disingenuous" is a word. I know what it means....I meant am I allowed to tack 'ness' on to the end. It means "lacking in genuine intent". I am really glad you posted this because it confirms my thoughts about where you might be coming from both in terms of your intention in posting the question but also in your inability to metabolize new information when it comes to most of the major platform issues for both parties. It should not confirm your thoughts, because earlier I very clearly stated that I asked the question in a very genuine fashion. I meant the words I typed, or I would not have typed them. Yep, you drank the koolaid just like some of my crazy hippie friends who think Republicans are all evil selfish bastards.I don't think this is a Republican trait or a Democratic trait. I think it's just plain old bullheadedness. It's human nature. And my additional admission that I had begun to fall into that trap, but realized it is truly indicative that I AM able to metabolize not only new information, but also old information that may have been misunderstood, mishandled, or plain out ignored.
It shocks me that so many people in this country hew almost religiously to an entire political platform having built some sort of internal consensus that it is a logical extension of a mindset or worldview. It shouldn't shock you, we are all too busy nowadays to put in the time and effort that is required to be truly involved in politics, it's much easier to listen to what someone tells you and then follow. It is what both major parties count on. It's not. The "conservative" platform and the G.O.P. has been a model in flux for many many years as has the "liberal" Democratic. Both parties have always been a COALITION. The GOP right now is one of religious institutions and fiscal conservatives and national security hawks (there is part of the libertarian ideal in there too, but both parties claim some of their membership depending on the issue.) The liberals are a union, environmental, civil-liberties (see libertarian above), anti-war, anti-poverty coalition. Of course this is an oversimplification of the issues, but you get the idea. More recently, both parties have shrink-wrapped the Coalitions together and sold them as an ideological package while ignoring the conflicts between them.
I hate to burst some bubbles but if you wholeheartedly agree with almost every single major platform issue of a party, you are a sheep and a sucker who is being used by said party. Additionally, if you are willing to paint every person who self-identifies as a democrat as "clueless" then you necessarily make yourself more ignorant of important issues and ideas. Like I said, your initial question was disingenuous. I don't believe you honestly came in looking to have a dialogue and allow the tiniest possibility that you mind might be changed. You came in to try and swat down others' rationales for voting for a president. I said that upon reflection I had begun.... BEGUN to see Dems this way, meaning that I'm smart enough to catch on and change my viewpoints. I'm not an idiot, sheep, sucker-- I am a good person, a loving mother, a blessed photographer, a Christian, a compassionate care-giver to others, a teacher, a fabulous lover to my husband, a loyal friend...I can go on. I do not in any way deserve to have my honesty called into question. Especially since I have already stated very straightforwardly that I posed this question in an honest attempt to understand where folks that support Obama are coming from. I would have a very hard time swatting down other's rationales since I am completely unable to tell you right now who I am voting for. If I were as you claim that I am, unable to process the intelligent thoughts and viewpoints of others I would most likely, at this point, decide that if all liberals called me names that I would not want to be like them and would flee towards the right. I, however, am not as you claim, unable to have my mind changed. It remains open. I will continue to seek all the information I can before making a decision as important as this.
I would have to say that this most recent slavo of yours must come from somewhere....and rather call you names, I will merely suggest that you should look inward to find that touchpoint in yourself that would set you off like this. Maybe, just maybe, you are also starting to think of others who disagree with you in a bad light. Step back and breathe. It's good for you.
Sorry Ginger. I love your photography, but it's akin to saying "Canon is the ONLY camera that works and Nikon SUCKS!" I'm a nikon-shooter. It's not intellectually honest. Both cameras have their own benefits. It may be easier for people to justify their choices by completely negating the other option's benefits, but when it comes down to it, it doesn't change the fact that there are benefits and the existence of both necessarily creates a stronger product for both sides through competition. Yep, agreed. What I think we saw in the 2006 election and what we are seeing with Obama's ascent to popularity is the political market correcting itself as 6 years of relative Republican coalition dominance seems to have produced some results which a lot of people are confused and frustrated by and feel duped.
People are barking about Bush not being a "true Conservative" which I think is a misonomer because such a thing cannot exist. There are too many conflicts inside both parties ideologies to allow someone to stand for every member group of the coalition.
Troy...shhh...remember, I won.
Yeah, that's why Democrats are getting ready to change the Constitution to give him four more years.
Wow...that would be crazy if it were true, wouldn't it? Buuuuut...it's not. He's successfully courted many independent voters but has less successful in courting some foreign-policy hawks inside the Democratic Party. It feels kind of dramatic and power to say things like this I am sure, Chris, but it's hyperbolic and it doesn't match that facts on the ground. The vast majority of self-described Democratic voters in this contest are supporting Obama. Your confusion about this might lie in the following fractured and kind of amazing claim:
And then Bob Barr will huff and puff and blooooooow the house down. See...what has happened here is you've conflated your PERCEPTION as TRUTH. Common mistake in hyperpolitics. Let's be clear...the "middle" or "moderate" or "centrist" is necessarily...well..in the middle or center. The Left is relatively "left" of the center and the Right is "right of center.
I really couldn't follow you on this part. Jumping around a bit much for me and not making as much sense as your usual diatribes. Edit: because you were addressing others...I see that now. (When I hit reply, it takes away who you were originally quoting. )
So, perhaps our national political ideologies are shifting, but I hate to break it to you, the center does NOT coalesce around you.
It's kind of amazing political narcisism on your part. Any claim to be left, right or center necessarily requires you to look at a coupla polls. Again, not intellectually honest...but oooohhhh...it feels so good.
My prayers have been answered.Now all we have to do is to wait for his internet to go out and my plan will be complete.
It shocks me that so many people in this country hew almost religiously to an entire political platform having built some sort of internal consensus that it is a logical extension of a mindset or worldview. It shouldn't shock you, we are all too busy nowadays to put in the time and effort that is required to be truly involved in politics, it's much easier to listen to what someone tells you and then follow. It is what both major parties count on. It's not. The "conservative" platform and the G.O.P. has been a model in flux for many many years as has the "liberal" Democratic. Both parties have always been a COALITION. The GOP right now is one of religious institutions and fiscal conservatives and national security hawks (there is part of the libertarian ideal in there too, but both parties claim some of their membership depending on the issue.) The liberals are a union, environmental, civil-liberties (see libertarian above), anti-war, anti-poverty coalition. Of course this is an oversimplification of the issues, but you get the idea. More recently, both parties have shrink-wrapped the Coalitions together and sold them as an ideological package while ignoring the conflicts between them.
I hate to burst some bubbles but if you wholeheartedly agree with almost every single major platform issue of a party, you are a sheep and a sucker who is being used by said party. Additionally, if you are willing to paint every person who self-identifies as a democrat as "clueless" then you necessarily make yourself more ignorant of important issues and ideas. Like I said, your initial question was disingenuous. I don't believe you honestly came in looking to have a dialogue and allow the tiniest possibility that you mind might be changed. You came in to try and swat down others' rationales for voting for a president. I said that upon reflection I had begun.... BEGUN to see Dems this way, meaning that I'm smart enough to catch on and change my viewpoints. I'm not an idiot, sheep, sucker-- I am a good person, a loving mother, a blessed photographer, a Christian, a compassionate care-giver to others, a teacher, a fabulous lover to my husband, a loyal friend...I can go on. I do not in any way deserve to have my honesty called into question. Especially since I have already stated very straightforwardly that I posed this question in an honest attempt to understand where folks that support Obama are coming from. I would have a very hard time swatting down other's rationales since I am completely unable to tell you right now who I am voting for. If I were as you claim that I am, unable to process the intelligent thoughts and viewpoints of others I would most likely, at this point, decide that if all liberals called me names that I would not want to be like them and would flee towards the right. I, however, am not as you claim, unable to have my mind changed. It remains open. I will continue to seek all the information I can before making a decision as important as this.
I would have to say that this most recent slavo of yours must come from somewhere....and rather call you names, I will merely suggest that you should look inward to find that touchpoint in yourself that would set you off like this. Maybe, just maybe, you are also starting to think of others who disagree with you in a bad light. Step back and breathe. It's good for you.
Sorry Ginger. I love your photography, but it's akin to saying "Canon is the ONLY camera that works and Nikon SUCKS!" I'm a nikon-shooter. It's not intellectually honest. Both cameras have their own benefits. It may be easier for people to justify their choices by completely negating the other option's benefits, but when it comes down to it, it doesn't change the fact that there are benefits and the existence of both necessarily creates a stronger product for both sides through competition. Yep, agreed. What I think we saw in the 2006 election and what we are seeing with Obama's ascent to popularity is the political market correcting itself as 6 years of relative Republican coalition dominance seems to have produced some results which a lot of people are confused and frustrated by and feel duped.
People are barking about Bush not being a "true Conservative" which I think is a misonomer because such a thing cannot exist. There are too many conflicts inside both parties ideologies to allow someone to stand for every member group of the coalition.
Troy...shhh...remember, I won.
Yeah, that's why Democrats are getting ready to change the Constitution to give him four more years.
Wow...that would be crazy if it were true, wouldn't it? Buuuuut...it's not. He's successfully courted many independent voters but has less successful in courting some foreign-policy hawks inside the Democratic Party. It feels kind of dramatic and power to say things like this I am sure, Chris, but it's hyperbolic and it doesn't match that facts on the ground. The vast majority of self-described Democratic voters in this contest are supporting Obama. Your confusion about this might lie in the following fractured and kind of amazing claim:
And then Bob Barr will huff and puff and blooooooow the house down. See...what has happened here is you've conflated your PERCEPTION as TRUTH. Common mistake in hyperpolitics. Let's be clear...the "middle" or "moderate" or "centrist" is necessarily...well..in the middle or center. The Left is relatively "left" of the center and the Right is "right of center.
I really couldn't follow you on this part. Jumping around a bit much for me and not making as much sense as your usual diatribes. Edit: because you were addressing others...I see that now. (When I hit reply, it takes away who you were originally quoting. ) So, perhaps our national political ideologies are shifting, but I hate to break it to you, the center does NOT coalesce around you.
It's kind of amazing political narcisism on your part. Any claim to be left, right or center necessarily requires you to look at a coupla polls. Again, not intellectually honest...but oooohhhh...it feels so good.My prayers have been answered.Now all we have to do is to wait for his internet to go out and my plan will be complete.
I sincerely think that you may be having a bad day or something.....I'd be careful throwing words like narcissistic at me, I might have to pull out my playground lyrics "I'm like rubber and you're like glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!"
(Nothin' like a little regression to make one feel better!) Edit: So you're not actually calling me full of myself.... I couldn't for the life of me figure out what I'd said to deserve such a tongue-lashing. I still think you were reading too much into my admission, but I'm cooling off a bit knowing that the last bit is not directed at me.
QUOTE(Sandra @ July 3 2008, 12:08 PM)
Yep, and I was also at my general practitioner last week and waited 3 hours when I arrived until they called my name. Couldn't reschedule because it would have taken another 2 weeks to get in.
But you have the option of choosing someone else.
QUOTE(Ryan J @ July 3 2008, 10:57 AM)
People are barking about Bush not being a "true Conservative" which I think is a misonomer because such a thing cannot exist. There are too many conflicts inside both parties ideologies to allow someone to stand for every member group of the coalition.
Yeah, that's why Democrats are getting ready to change the Constitution to give him four more years.
Wow...that would be crazy if it were true, wouldn't it? Buuuuut...it's not. He's successfully courted many independent voters but has less successful in courting some foreign-policy hawks inside the Democratic Party. It feels kind of dramatic and power to say things like this I am sure, Chris, but it's hyperbolic and it doesn't match that facts on the ground. The vast majority of self-described Democratic voters in this contest are supporting Obama. Your confusion about this might lie in the following fractured and kind of amazing claim:
And then Bob Barr will huff and puff and blooooooow the house down. See...what has happened here is you've conflated your PERCEPTION as TRUTH. Common mistake in hyperpolitics. Let's be clear...the "middle" or "moderate" or "centrist" is necessarily...well..in the middle or center. The Left is relatively "left" of the center and the Right is "right of center.
So, perhaps our national political ideologies are shifting, but I hate to break it to you, the center does NOT coalesce around you. It's kind of amazing political narcisism on your part. Any claim to be left, right or center necessarily requires you to look at a coupla polls. Again, not intellectually honest...but oooohhhh...it feels so good.
My prayers have been answered.Now all we have to do is to wait for his internet to go out and my plan will be complete.
Yeah, that's why Democrats are getting ready to change the Constitution to give him four more years.
Wow...that would be crazy if it were true, wouldn't it? Buuuuut...it's not. He's successfully courted many independent voters but has less successful in courting some foreign-policy hawks inside the Democratic Party. It feels kind of dramatic and power to say things like this I am sure, Chris, but it's hyperbolic and it doesn't match that facts on the ground. The vast majority of self-described Democratic voters in this contest are supporting Obama. Your confusion about this might lie in the following fractured and kind of amazing claim:
And then Bob Barr will huff and puff and blooooooow the house down. See...what has happened here is you've conflated your PERCEPTION as TRUTH. Common mistake in hyperpolitics. Let's be clear...the "middle" or "moderate" or "centrist" is necessarily...well..in the middle or center. The Left is relatively "left" of the center and the Right is "right of center.
So, perhaps our national political ideologies are shifting, but I hate to break it to you, the center does NOT coalesce around you. It's kind of amazing political narcisism on your part. Any claim to be left, right or center necessarily requires you to look at a coupla polls. Again, not intellectually honest...but oooohhhh...it feels so good.
My prayers have been answered.Now all we have to do is to wait for his internet to go out and my plan will be complete.
The quotes of the quotes don't seem to be working right, but I will make my response to Ryan.
First off, despite any shift in the politics of this nation, there is a left and right when it comes to politics & government thoughts. Communists will always be on the left as long as we have someone like me on the far right. The middle may shift as you say, but there will be a left and a right. There will always be a left extreme and a right extreme. And the center may be shifting. I never said I am the center which you seem to believe.
I still stand by original post in how each candidate falls in line. In the large scale of things, Obama is still on the left, McCain is still in the middle, and no one is really on the right. Maybe you are right and the nation's majority is between Obama and McCain or right at Obama, but it doesn't mean the scale has changed.
You can call anyone you like arrogant, but your posts, while sounding the most educated with your word choices, are still the most arrogant of any other poster so far. I am sure your SAT verbal scores were high, but please put your Thesaurus away for now and keep it about the candidates and topics. I don't remember attacking you on a personal level for your beliefs, so please keep it the same when you reply.
On another topic:
Anyone else realize that this topic is hugely divided on location? NYC and NJ versus the rest?
QUOTE(Sandra @ July 3 2008, 09:08 AM)
Yep, and I was also at my general practitioner last week and waited 3 hours when I arrived until they called my name. Couldn't reschedule because it would have taken another 2 weeks to get in.
There is always someone who will see you, though. If it's bad enough, you go to the ER, and you will absolutely be seen. Yes, there is a wait in the doctor's office, but in most cases you are seen the same day you call. My general practitioner always gets us in the same day, and is willing to spend as much time with us as we need, which I always take into consideration when I'm waiting in his waiting room.
In fact, I called this morning at 9:00 and have an appt in a few minutes for my daughter, so I'm off. Much better than waiting 3 weeks to be seen at all, if you ask me.
Adding to my original thought. New Orleans, New York, New Jersey.... something with New in the state or city name? This is just something I realized after lots of scrolling.
Alright, much time wasted getting worked up over this. Since apparently, this has turned personal, it is time to jet. Good luck Troy and Ginger holding up the fort in my absence
Alright, much time wasted getting worked up over this. Since apparently, this has turned personal, it is time to jet. Good luck Troy and Ginger holding up the fort in my absence
QUOTE(Chris Harvey @ July 3 2008, 02:06 PM)
You can call anyone you like arrogant, but your posts, while sounding the most educated with your word choices, are still the most arrogant of any other poster so far. I am sure your SAT verbal scores were high, but please put your Thesaurus away for now and keep it about the candidates and topics. I don't remember attacking you on a personal level for your beliefs, so please keep it the same when you reply.
I attacked the narcissism of what I wrongly assumed was your claim to the center. I certainly see how you might have taken that personally, especially after I misrepresented your post. So apologies on that front. It was a poor choice of words based on a poor reading of your post. That said, I disagree with your painting of Obama as a far-left politian and I certainly disagree with your painting McCain as a centrist (his maverick reputation aside).
I never took the SATs. I am sorry if my post came off as arrogant to you, but yours came off as short-sighted and oversimplified to me. I don't have time to coddle your insecurities about language. I don't use big words to impress or intimidate. I use longer words sometimes because they are more specific and less apt to be either misunderstood or misrepresented. I stated my points clearly and backed them up. You asking me to lower my standard of language-use is sort of...well...communist.
(that was a joke...seriously..)I hafta go to shoot a wedding. I can't WAIT to see what I come back to here. Sending you some popcorn Troy I.
QUOTE(EarlPhotography @ July 3 2008, 10:14 AM)
There is always someone who will see you, though. If it's bad enough, you go to the ER, and you will absolutely be seen..
If you go to the ER the price is 1500% higher. Not so great when you have a 2K deductible, co-insurance and co-payments. The ER is not a reasonable cost alternative for most people to afford.
QUOTE(stephen seward @ July 3 2008, 10:05 AM)
for those opting for socialized health insurance...have you ever been to a DMV?
the "DMV" is privatized here in Alberta, with plenty of registry offices and such. Makes it quite easy and fast, actually.
i still don't quite get why people equate socialized health care with the DMV. It's not like there is a lack of doctors, hospitals, walk in clinics etc etc, in comparison to DMV locations, is there? I'm geuinely curious about this.
QUOTE(Chris Uglanica @ July 3 2008, 07:53 PM)
the "DMV" is privatized here in Alberta, with plenty of registry offices and such. Makes it quite easy and fast, actually.
i still don't quite get why people equate socialized health care with the DMV. It's not like there is a lack of doctors, hospitals, walk in clinics etc etc, in comparison to DMV locations, is there? I'm geuinely curious about this.
i still don't quite get why people equate socialized health care with the DMV. It's not like there is a lack of doctors, hospitals, walk in clinics etc etc, in comparison to DMV locations, is there? I'm geuinely curious about this.
until you guys have actually lived with health care services, you can't really comment on the pros or the cons - chris, i believe you being in canada, you have it, right?
for the most part, it works. but on some levels it doesnt and it fails. there are stories all the time on the Beeb about women fighting breast cancer, but they wont give them the medications they neeed because they are too expensive for the NHS.
Just my two cent's worth on the idea of a government-run healthcare..... It's kind of amazing to me that so many people are upset and ticked off and scared about what the government is doing with their retirement money (social security) that they are pushing for SS to be put back in the hands of the people. Now, if the government can't take care of my money, why on earth would I want it to take care of my health???
And I'm stepping back onto the sidelines as political discussions are NOT my thing.
And I'm stepping back onto the sidelines as political discussions are NOT my thing.
here's an idea for the US: a single payer system for primary care, where all Americans would be covered and entitled to yearly wellness exams, and then a separate private market to cover meds, emergency care, surgery, etc it gives us lefties some of what we want and lets you righties keep your precious private system lol
Excellent point Nicole. I won't draw you into the fray.
QUOTE(NicoleW @ July 3 2008, 02:07 PM)
Just my two cent's worth on the idea of a government-run healthcare..... It's kind of amazing to me that so many people are upset and ticked off and scared about what the government is doing with their retirement money (social security) that they are pushing for SS to be put back in the hands of the people. Now, if the government can't take care of my money, why on earth would I want it to take care of my health???
And I'm stepping back onto the sidelines as political discussions are NOT my thing.
And I'm stepping back onto the sidelines as political discussions are NOT my thing.
um the social security thing isn't about taking care of money, it's that more people are aging in than are paying in. you don't pay in for yourself, you're paying in for people who are currently on SS
you have to admit, when social security was started, the gov't didn't have all the financial gurus and advisors to project into the future, it was something that was needed and implemented. the solution now? more taxes!!! lol
thanks Ginger! LOL
QUOTE(Phil P @ July 3 2008, 12:03 PM)
regarding universal health: a single payer system would probably be best in terms of keeping costs down for everyone, mainly because the size of the risk pool would allow for enough diversity so that the healthier folks make up for those who spend more. Plus, with more people having regular, quality access to primary care would create a healthier American, further reducing healthcare costs. Currently, we spend more than any other industrialized country in the world, yet rank lowest in many health indicators. Those who have access get good care, but too many folks don't have access to the quality healthcare we have.
The employer based model of health insurance is dying; you're finding fewer employers providing benefits and many are cutting back. So that alone isn't the solution. The private market, left unchecked, finds ways to shortchange people.
As Ryan said, there isn't just one answer, and socialized medicine isn't necessarily the answer. Countries have varying success with it at different levels. But ensuring that everyone has access to primary care services should be a priority we should all care about, regardless of whether it's a private or publicly funded solution. "life" in our constitution should include "healthy life" A healthier America means more of us are working, a healthier America means we control the rising costs by preventing illness instead of expensively treating illness.
The current system just doesn't cut it.
The employer based model of health insurance is dying; you're finding fewer employers providing benefits and many are cutting back. So that alone isn't the solution. The private market, left unchecked, finds ways to shortchange people.
As Ryan said, there isn't just one answer, and socialized medicine isn't necessarily the answer. Countries have varying success with it at different levels. But ensuring that everyone has access to primary care services should be a priority we should all care about, regardless of whether it's a private or publicly funded solution. "life" in our constitution should include "healthy life" A healthier America means more of us are working, a healthier America means we control the rising costs by preventing illness instead of expensively treating illness.
The current system just doesn't cut it.
I do agree with you quite a bit Phil. If there is a single risk pool that has the potential to drive down insurance premiums. I do not necessarily think we can take a dramatic step to socialized medicine, but I do think there are ways to make it more afforadable, and I will take these lines out of a congressional proposal. Make all prices for services openly disclosed. Before I go in for treatment I should know the price I am paying and if it is competetive with other clinics, the same principle that applies to most businesses in the free market, why not health care. Create a single risk pool for all citizens to decrease prices. Make health insurance companies compete for our business.
There is certainly not a simple fix to a broken system. After two college courses on health care policy, I still feel like I barely scratched the surface. But that does not mean that we stay stagnant, we need to remain competitive and encourage progress. As a country we should be encouraging research into finding new treatments, more cost effective ways to treat patients, a more efficient system for processing health care. And don't get me started on the vulnerability of your medical records.
All of this is more geared toward preventative medicine and allowing folks access to regular check ups. If folks are able to have regular health care, they are less likely to need more costly treatment later on that drives up health care costs and taxes. Folks are concerned about the bottom line, and the failed system right now is passing the burden onto everyone. Medicaid and Medicare costs continue to rise, and much could be offset by early intervention.
QUOTE(Jill Higgins @ July 2 2008, 03:23 PM)
They don't "take our children to war." Adults go to war and they volunteer. It is insulting for you to say that. My husband is an intelliegent, educated man who chooses to be in the AF. Yes, he could make more money (a lot more) and avoid deploying if he got out - but he chooses to stay in. I get so sick of people making it seem that those serving our country are poor, drooling children who can't do anything else and have no choice.
Amen Jill...I spent 6 years (Aim High!) in the service becuase i felt it was my duty to do so. Yes I got out and have moved into corporate America making more money, but I did my service so that others could live free, so that others could have a vote. I had lot's of choices when I joined on what I could be doing but I CHOOSE to enlist. I was involved in the first Iraq war and feel we should have finished it off then. I won't deny that there have been mistakes made in this one and it could been handled differently, but I've personally seen the evidence on how Sadaam treated his people.
QUOTE(Phil P @ July 3 2008, 02:17 PM)
um the social security thing isn't about taking care of money, it's that more people are aging in than are paying in. you don't pay in for yourself, you're paying in for people who are currently on SS
you have to admit, when social security was started, the gov't didn't have all the financial gurus and advisors to project into the future, it was something that was needed and implemented. the solution now? more taxes!!! lol
you have to admit, when social security was started, the gov't didn't have all the financial gurus and advisors to project into the future, it was something that was needed and implemented. the solution now? more taxes!!! lol
Yup, I get that. That's why it's been mismanaged. And just out of curiosity, if there was a universal health care, how do I know what I pay into it won't go for someone else? Same thing with the social security. Just cuz I'm paying now doesn't mean I'll get to use it.
And didn't I say I wasn't going to get drawn it? LOL I'm going back to window-shopping for camera supplies now.
QUOTE(Amy Clark @ July 3 2008, 02:18 PM)
After two college courses on health care policy, I still feel like I barely scratched the surface.
Tell me about it, I have a masters degree in health policy (and possibly getting my phd in that) and I still have much to learn (especially since I'm in a non-academic career where I'm funneled in one aspect of healthcare). It's hard to balance the financing, delivery, politics, that go into health care. It's all intertwined and any sort of major change takes forever to achieve.
QUOTE(NicoleW @ July 3 2008, 02:07 PM)
Now, if the government can't take care of my money, why on earth would I want it to take care of my health???
I think you have a valid question Nicole. But remember, the original plan that was tossed around at the beginning of the Bush administration was not to get rid of Social Security, but have you invest the money you put into stocks, essentially make it a portfolia so that it had the possibility to grow it before your retirement. "Personal Retirement Accounts" is the coined term, otherwise privatizing Social Security.
The problem with this is that there is significant risk in creating these accounts. It also creates a greater government buracracy to manage and track these accounts, and a cost to do so with millions of American workers to track.
Honestly, something has to be done. When Social Security was created, there was a greater worker ratio to retire ratio to support folks. Now that ratio has evened out as folks live longer, and families have fewer children. While an aging population is not necesiarily a bad thing it puts a greater stain on the working population to support the retirees.
What is worse is that because of the nations financial situation we have started "borrowing" money out of this fund to put toward other areas of the goverment. McCain recently stated he did not want to privatize Social Security, a departure from previous comments in 2004, ""Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits." So I cannot be certain where he stands. Obama has come out strongly against it, "Well let me be clear: privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it. It's a bad idea today. It would eventually cut guaranteed benefits by up to 50%. It would cost a trillion dollars that we don't have to implement on the front end, permanently elevating our debt. And most of all, it would gamble the retirement plans of millions of Americans on the stock market. That's why I stood up against this plan in the Senate, and that's why I won't stand for it as President."
Something certainly needs to be done, for the time being it is certainly up for debate.
QUOTE(the real tami @ July 3 2008, 01:03 PM)
until you guys have actually lived with health care services, you can't really comment on the pros or the cons - chris, i believe you being in canada, you have it, right?
for the most part, it works. but on some levels it doesnt and it fails. there are stories all the time on the Beeb about women fighting breast cancer, but they wont give them the medications they neeed because they are too expensive for the NHS.
for the most part, it works. but on some levels it doesnt and it fails. there are stories all the time on the Beeb about women fighting breast cancer, but they wont give them the medications they neeed because they are too expensive for the NHS.
Yup, I'm in Canada, Tami. There are always going to be issues, regardless of the system, but I truly believe that access to health care is a fundamental right.
QUOTE(Sandra @ July 3 2008, 11:43 AM)
If you go to the ER the price is 1500% higher. Not so great when you have a 2K deductible, co-insurance and co-payments. The ER is not a reasonable cost alternative for most people to afford.
If it isn't serious, you wait for the doctor you like, or you find another one in your insurance network who will see you sooner, or isn't as busy. If it is serious, as in the cases you listed above with your family members, where you need immediate attention, you go to the ER.
Not true regarding cost, as I previously stated, ERs have cash paying discounts. Yes, they inflate the price to the insurance companies. I just had a baby and was discounted 50% at the hospital, and 60% on the anesthesiologist.
I have catastrophic coverage, with "co-pays." The co-pays are a joke. I just got back from the doctor, and my co-pay would have been $30, and the insurance company usually bills me for the visit anyways, which has been $120-200. I asked today if I could just pay cash-$77 for 2 kids! I would have paid $60 with 2 co-pays, and then would have probably been billed $200 extra from insurance.
Yes, insurance is ridiculous-the prices, waits, and co-pays. Why do you want MORE of it with Universal Healthcare? The waits will be longer, it will take longer to see if problems are "covered," and I guarantee you the prices will be higher if they're not.
QUOTE(EarlPhotography @ July 3 2008, 03:13 PM)
Yes, insurance is ridiculous-the prices, waits, and co-pays. Why do you want MORE of it with Universal Healthcare? The waits will be longer, it will take longer to see if problems are "covered," and I guarantee you the prices will be higher if they're not.
That is why I advocated a single risk pool, and openly disclosed prices, and create competition in the marketplace (see post above). In addition to preventative health care (see previous post)
QUOTE(Amy Clark @ July 3 2008, 01:25 PM)
That is why I advocated a single risk pool, and openly disclosed prices, and create competition in the marketplace (see post above). In addition to preventative health care (see previous post)
I'm just not sure that keeping insurance companies in it is the key. Yes, I understand that some people out there with severe conditions absolutely need it, but right now it is seen by so many as an absolute NEED for everyone. I agree with creating competition, but not among insurance companies. I think if less people were using insurance, doctors would greatly reduce their prices (as I have seen firsthand), which would create competition among them, prices would level out per area, and people would see it as much easier to go to the doctor, without the anxiety of wondering if insurance is going to pick up the bill or not. Most people I know don't even understand how their insurance works! All they care about is their co-pay.
Insurance is basically gambling-they're gambling you won't get sick enough to claim more than you've paid in (and if you do, chances are, they'll raise your rates anyway). We're gambling that some day we'll be sick enough to make all of thoseinsurance payments worth it. Unfortunately, just like Vegas, the house always wins...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.