Politics

Wow. You're the walking-talking epitome of non-Republican! No wonder I like you so much!

Back atcha, GE!

Not all us republicans are evil. Why must people brush everyone with the same stroke. My entire family is republican and trust me, we are not horrible people who hate everybody. Excuse me. Oh, and we don't hate trees, or the earth either. Sorry, free speech and all I know, but I find some of the posts in this thread offensive. I will just make it a point to stay clear of it from this point on. BTW, my father was a republican his entire life and a kinder, gentler, sweeter, more descent and caring man could not exist.

I agree with you . My brother is a Republican and he is indeed very nice and smart. I am neither I am strictly independent. I base my vote on the issues not on what the two party system tells me it should be. For now I agree with Obama on Healtcare issues and education ,gun control, etc. Actually the founding fathers of this country believed in less government interfence. Particulary Jefferson who believed in states rights. But that being said someting has to be done about the state of healthcare in this country , stat. If it needs to be fedrally funded so be it.

I genuinely thought my post about the debates was very straight forward.

While I acknowledge that I wouldn't vote for any of the Republicans, I did not vilify them at all.

I trashed Romney as an individual, and fully believe he is a nasty phoney, but I wasn't a whole lot less harsh about Hilary, who stands for far more things i agree with.

If McCain believed in the things I believe in, I would vote for him.

But he doesn't, so I won't.

The snark post about the tags that would make Republicans demonize ME was certainly not to mean you, FC...I was picturing the demons of my youth, Nixon and Regan. Just the fact that I am in favor of a woman's right to chose, and the fact the most stable couples I know personally are gay men really does kick me out of most Republican's universe right there. Plus I say "fuck" a lot, and i really am not a Christian. Or a Jew.

I am not exactly a secular Humanist, but I might as well be. Not in a million years could I pretend I am a church goer. I could not believe more strongly in the separation of church and state and will fight against anybody who tries to breach that (Huckabee, however surprisingly cute I found him, would be the very worst President for an America I want to live in. But I did not trash him as a person, at all) adamantly.

I think any forum labeled "politics" is going to piss someone off at some point. It is free speech, and thus every point is open for debate. Nobody has to accept what is said and lie on their back. If someone has a differing opinion, I'm open to it. The best way to change minds about people you have a perception about, is to have a healthy debate and state your point of view in an open and honest way. To just say you're not going to visit a thread anymore means that it will just be a bunch of people agreeing with each other.

There was another board I used to frequent that was populated by Christian Conservatives. I was very much in the minority. I just tried to state my case clearly and concisely. I knew the nature of the board and I knew going into a political thread at this message board would mean I would see views diametrically opposed to my beliefs. I wanted them to know I wouldn't back down.

I thought Frazz was very equal in listing what happened with the debates. She had good and bad to say about everyone. She didn't say all the democrats were good and the Republicans were bad.

On the whole, whenever a Republican is in office, they try to get measures on the ballot to ban gays from having any rights, preach family values, and generally frown upon liberals. They have been pro oil co. and have not been known for backing environmental issues. Tax breaks for the rich. Pro military.

So, when we talk about the attributes of a Republican, we're talking about the people who have held offices where they make policy. We're not saying you, FC, are an environment-hating asshole. We're not saying your dad is either. I have a really good friend who's a GEORGE BUSH Republican. I ride around in her truck with her freakin' Bush bumper stickers. She is one of the kindest women I've ever met. She's an amazing friend. I love her dearly. We just don't discuss politics under any circumstances.

So, I need to feel free to come in to a political thread and say what I want and FC, you have every right to come in here and defend your beliefs. Unless someone attacks someone else personally, in my opinion, there's no need to get personally offended.

Maybe the problem lies in making blanket statements rather than in discussing specifics. I do not think all Republicans are evil, or they all hate people, or they all hate trees.

I do think that this particular Republican administration is among the most destructive in the entire history of the country. I think this particular President has committed not only errors in judgement, but human rights violations, war crimes, and he has dismantled the Constitution. I am unhappy with the Republicans in Congress right now because they gave him free reign to do whatever damage he liked. Because of this particular administration, our climate is warming, torture has become an American method of interrogation, and the entire world hates us because of the Iraq war. This man tried to reward a personal supporter who had no legal experience with a place on the Supreme Court just because of her stance on abortion.

We have had good Republican presidents. My mother points out to me that Ike, in particular, was good for the country in his time period. Nixon, for all his extreme corruption and paranoia, did indeed do some good work in foreign relations. I saw a book in the library yesterday where a conservative writer suggested that his party had lost its way - the party of small government and fiscal responsibility has, in this administration, created unnecessary layers of government that served more to bolster Bush's power than to protect our freedoms, and they are the most prolifigate in the history of the country.

This particular administration must be repudiated. The people who enabled him must be turned out of office. I really wish that if Gore could not have been our President in the last eight years, we had at least had a stable, intellectually acceptable man like McCain in the office. But we got this... thing... this trainwreck, this terrifying parody of a President instead.

We have to go in a different direction.

That's the point. I don't think blanket statements were made. Frazz was very equal in her assessment of the debate and anything else, as we said, was about what we have seen with Republican administrations, not Republican people.

Bush has done for Republicans what Hillary, if she became president, would do for Democrats. I agree about this administration. The hubris is incredible. That people are still defending his actions is unbelievable. There have been Republican presidents (like his dad) who didn't make me want to vomit when he comes onto the screen.

I'll have to ask my mom about Ike. I already know what she'll say about Nixon and I'm pretty sure it'll include spitting. She loved Ben Stein until she found out he was a speech writer for Nixon and still defends him.

HUH! Who woulda thunk it, but I found myself cheering that Hillary turned it around in New Hampshire.

I think my buried feeling from watching the debates the other night, was that even if Hillary has been not all that personally attractive, I think maybe I believe that Obama is all talk and not even interested in action. I keep seeing him take every media opportunity to talk about how much Americans want change and hope, but even with a pretty good online search, I can't find anything particularly substantive about what sorts of changes he wants to make.

I understand (even if I disagree on some of the issues) with Hillary's views and plans, and John Edward's intentions (Bill RIchardson, too!) regarding Health Care, the war, social security, taxes, women's right to choose, education values, etc. ALL the basic issues.

Anybody know what sort of change Obama is interested in?

I have not finished reading it, but 20 pages in to his Blueprint for America I am not quite getting it.

Whoever wrote it knows the bullet points, and how to organize such a piece, but so far it is just garden variety democratic views (many of which I agree with) but noting unusual or distinctive about how he would go about getting any of the things done.

He does make a big deal of wanting to lessen the power of lobbyists, but several people on his campaign staff are lobbyists. A little digging reveals that many of the candidates on both sides have lobbyists working for them, so I don't quite get the official furor versus the reality.

As I looked over the main Democratic candidates site for this post, I still have to say that Bill Richardson's policy views really appeal to me. I hope he is VP for whoever wins.

Fraz - Obama is the most interesting and the most charismatic of the Democrats running, but I agree that it isn't really clear what exactly he would do if President. I heard a pundit call him the "new shiny".

New Shiny? That's not the same as being able to run the country. Shiny is not the same as ready. But Ready is not the same as Best.

It appears that our next President will be one of these people:

The New Shiny
The Comeback Kid, Redux
The Hawk
The Pulpit Pounder.

My head hurts. I'm not sold on any of them, but they are all less objectionable than the man the Daily Show tonight called President Homer. Is it November yet?

Why do I care? I live in Texas. By the time our Primary hits, the nominee will be decided. If I vote on Election day, because of the way the Electoral College works, there is absolutely no chance at all my vote will be of any consequence whatsoever. So frustrating.

Quote :

Anybody know what sort of change Obama is interested in?

Him being in the White House rather than somebody else? It's a buzzword. It does not live up to close scrutiny or analysis. Most of the platitudes these folks preach don't. The implication, of course, is that he's appealing to anybody who would like for President Trainwreck to go away, but the further implication, that he's the only person who is really discernably different from President Trainwreck, isn't even fair to McCain, let alone Hillary.

Here's the thing with me. I am not really crazy about any of them. I will take Obama over any of the others . But if is Clinton and Mcain I will go with Mccain. I don't agree with him on everything. But I am disgusted by how much pac monet she has taken. And I can guarantee you her voting and policy record will refelect it. You know I am basically disgsuted and cynical at this point. You know within the last several years there has not been that much of a distinction between the two parties. They all move to the middle at some point lest they offend someone.My ideal dream canidate would be someone who would stand up to lobbyists. See when the deomcrats are in power the Democratic lobbyist are and vice versa with the Republicans. they are pushing the same agenda for the same corporations. There is no difference. It is very sad to me. That is not the way this country was set up. So Bascially your elected officals are not basing decisions based on what we need.

Here is a cool website that breaks down the canidates;
votesmart.org

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

I wish most ppl would read and inform themselves of the issues instead of blindly going into the voting booth.

I generally read the newspaper, watch the debates and study the information put out by the League of Women Voters, but I find your link very helpful, Aerwin. I have not seen that particular website before.

Currently reading: A Tragic Legacy: How a Good Vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency by Glenn Greenwood.

Quote :

My ideal dream canidate would be someone who would stand up to lobbyists.

They would never have enough funding to get elected. The system is broken.

However, I do think that there are some differences between the Neo-cons running the Republican party and the Democrats; there was nothing Middle about the Bush administration. A more reasonable Republican administration might look like a centrist Democratic administration, but the White House has been a wack job for eight years.

Oh Good I'm glad you found the website helpful. I am so glad to have someone to discuss politics with you just don't know. My hubster gets weary of it. There was an article a few weeks ago in RS about the the sinilarities between the two parties now I wished I had saved it. But it was a huge eye opener. You know another thing that iccured to me is this do we really want almost 20 years of only Bush/ Clintons?

Quote :

They would never have enough funding to get elected. The system is broken.

see that really saddens me. One of my Heroes is Thomas Jefferson . I often wonder what he would think.

Quote :

France is healthcare leader, US comes dead last: study Tue Jan 8, 4:45 PM ET



WASHINGTON (AFP) - France is tops, and the United States dead last, in providing timely and effective healthcare to its citizens, according to a survey Tuesday of preventable deaths in 19 industrialized countries.

ADVERTISEMENT

The study by the Commonwealth Fund and published in the January/February issue of the journal Health Affairs measured developed countries' effectiveness at providing timely and effective healthcare.

The study, entitled "Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis," was written by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It looked at death rates in subjects younger than 75 that could have been prevented by timely and effective medical care.

The researchers found that while most countries surveyed saw preventable deaths decline by an average of 16 percent, the United States saw only a four percent dip.

The non-profit Commonwealth Fund, which financed the study, expressed alarm at the findings.

"It is startling to see the US falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen, who noted that "other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less."

The 19 countries, in order of best to worst, were: France, Japan, Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Some countries showed dramatic improvement in the periods studied -- 1997 and 1998 and again between 2002 and 2003 -- outpacing the United States, which showed only slight improvement.

White the United States ranked 15th of 19 between 1997-98, by 2002-03 it had fallen to last place.

"It is notable that all countries have improved substantially except the US," said Ellen Nolte, lead author of the study.

Had the United States performed as well as any of the top three industrialized countries, there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths per year, the researchers said.

Maybe I'll move to France.

Thanks for posting that article, aerwin. Very interesting information in it.

I am hoping that healthcare becomes the biggest issue of this year's presidential campaign. How can our supposed caring leaders allow this mess we call a health care system to continue?

Lau, I wonder about that, too. Anytime real proposals to create universal health care for all Americans is proposed it gets shot down as Socialism. And from the late 40s through the Regan era, the terror of being branded anything that could possibly be interpreted as nearing toward communism has squelched it. "Socialized Medicine" is a term used to smear people in favor of any sort of plan that covers everybody.

But many things in America (public education, the jobs of all government employees, etc.) are guaranteed by things that are technically, just as socialistic as covering All Americans health care.

p.s. I have no health insurance. I keep looking for ways to be able to afford it, but have not found it. If I made $500 (up to $700) a month more than I do, it would all go to insurance premiums. I am now officially in my late 50s. That is the way it goes.

News:

Quote :

Dennis Kucinich, Democratic Presidential Candidate and Ohio Congressman, will be allowed to participate in tomorrow's Nevada debate in the wake of a lawsuit his legal team filed in Clark County, Nev., his lawyer said today

YAY. Although I know he doesn't stand a chance in hell (or even heaven) to get nominated, hopefully he can provide the GENUINE liberal view of things to nudge the other Democrats a bit less slanted to the right than they have been.

Edwards doesn't say much that is especially right wing, but his attitude sure is.

Neither Hillary nor Obama is particularly liberal as far as Democrats go.

Well, I found it the height of foolishness that he was being prevented from participating anyway. If he's allowed on the ballot, he ought to be allowed to speak. Period. On basic principles. I'd object just as much if there was a Republican debate that barred Ron Paul.

I do wish the three main Dems would stop taking personal snipes at each other like a bunch of three year olds. I want to put all three of them in time out. This is not helpful - especially if one of them ends up going up against the one Republican I genuinely respect and fear - John McCain.

I think a McCain/Clinton race would be no slam dunk at all for the Democrats, unlike say, Huckabee/Obama, which I think would be over in about fifteen seconds.

Quote :

I do wish the three main Dems would stop taking personal snipes at each other like a bunch of three year olds. I want to put all three of them in time out.

Yes! HELLO! Oh I have a good idea let's address the issues ! I swear to God It makes me think it is diversion tactic.

Quote :

Dennis Kucinich, Democratic Presidential Candidate and Ohio Congressman, will be allowed to participate in tomorrow's Nevada debate in the wake of a lawsuit his legal team filed in Clark County, Nev., his lawyer said today

And then NBC/GE, the same people insisting that the Writers Guild writers/SAG actors, and DGA directors not get paid for internet viewing sponsored by advertising, sued to exclude Kucinich from the Nevada debates.

Why? What are they afraid of?

Caroline and Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama is a huge deal, in my book.

Ted, as I am sure I have said, is always troublesome in my mind, in that he might as well have murdered, on purpose Mary jo Kopechne (the woman he was cheating on his wife with on a drunken night in Chappaquiddick Cape Cod when he drove off a bridge and immediately went to cover up what was happening rather than getting help for her in the several hours she was trapped in the car under water before she died.

I like his votes, I believe in most of his political views, but I cannot forget Mary Jo and how horrifying it still is that he got away with it.

That said, Obama already has the under-30 voters, who certainly do not give a shit about the whole Kennedy mythology. But the over 50sers are still under the spell. And they have been inclining toward Hillary.

Caroline Kennedy endorsing Obama first makes the endorsement even more compelling. She does seem to be an honorable person (though why Chappaquiddick doesn't bother her is beyond me).

The endorsement plus Bill Clinton's surprisingly nasty digs at Obama recently have all but ensured Obama will win the Democratic nomination.

I assume that McCain will be the republican nominee.

As it becomes more certain that it will be the two of them, I will jump on the Obama bandwagon and fight for him.

Much though I enjoy McCain's persona, my own personal life will be much worse off if he is President.

I'm with you, Frazz. I have been an undecided Democrat all this year. I remember the Clinton years as a time of peace and prosperity; even if he was a slimy tomcat, that was a personal piccadillo; he gave us the only balanced budget I've ever seen and it was a good time for the nation. We had no serious problems.

Except that some people hated him, and his habit of lying, with a level of rage that bordered on obsession.

The idea of getting that peace and prosperity back was tempting.

However, we need somebody who can unite the country and get us going forward together. If she splits up the party, and causes disunity of purpose, then she cannot be an effective leader.

At the same time, I think having a Black president who has some active knowledge of Muslim practices and culture might be a VERY good asset in improving our relations with the Middle Eastern countries we alienated under President Trainwreck. The night Obama won South Carolina, I moved into his column as one of his voters. I will actually cast my ballot in early March.

That being said, I think stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates - taking away the voice of two states, one of them enormous - was an incredibly short-sighted decision that's going to create extra animosity within the party. We can fault Clinton for trying to weasel them into her column, and that's legitimate, but the idea of telling a million people that they were not allowed to vote for their candidate because their legislature is full of dumb-asses just makes me sick to my stomach.

Everybody's vote should be heard.

I really do not understand why the DNC did that with the delegates. I am sure they have some reasoning that makes sense to them, but google has not provided me with answers so far.

I vote on super Tuesday next week. I probably won't know whether I will vote for Clinton or Obama until the last minute, though I am leaning toward him.

I'll be writing in a vote if Obama gets the nomination. I don't like the way he played the race card and Clinton got blamed for it. I don't like the way white voters are being guilt tripped to vote for him out of fear that if they don't that must mean they're racist. I don't like the way his campaign takes any compliment or attack and turns into some kind of racist slur.

Maybe I'll vote for myself. At least I'll be voting for someone who agrees with me 100%.

ETA: FTR, I don't mean to imply that the Clintons aren't attacking Obama at all, just that their attacks are not racist in nature as Obama's camp wants you to believe.

Also, I think what happened is that Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries and as a punishment the DNC stripped them of their delegates.



.