Obama, Clinton. Which is the lesser of two evils?

[Praxeas]

From what I have heard and read so far Obama is actually further left than Hillery.;.....IF that is the cae then to me she is the lesser of two evils

[Encryptus]

Gore picked the wrong election to sit out.

:bliss

[Moe]

I heard on the Rush Limbaugh show that a professor from Michigan who is Republican is going to vote Democrat for the Primary and will vote for Hillary just to throw the vote away from Obama. Not a bad idea. He is on his own radio show in Michigan and has great influence over many. So this may be a trend. Then in November he will switch back and vote Mc Cain in office.

As far as your question, I know that Hillary is the lessor or the 2 evils. IMHO

[tamor]

I have always said that I could not stand the thought of Hilary as president but I think Obama would be worse.

[pelathais]

Hillary is a political animal. Given that, I'd think that with a Republican Congress (and there will definitely be a Republican Congress by 2010 if a Dem is President) Hillary is the more likely to "play ball" with conservatives. That's what we'd need if such a scenario played out.

[Brother Price]

Vote Constitutionalist and get all the Democrats (real and hidden with a R by their name) out!

:D

Chuck Baldwin for President!

[Ferd]

Hillary is a political animal. Given that, I'd think that with a Republican Congress (and there will definitely be a Republican Congress by 2010 if a Dem is President) Hillary is the more likely to "play ball" with conservatives. That's what we'd need if such a scenario played out.

i think you are right.

Hillary is at least a pragmatist. Obama is a true believer.

I dont know if it is spin or truth but there has been some talk that Hillary talked Bill into signing the wellfare reform legislation. i find that difficult to believe but i am coming to think that when push comes to shove, she would "play ball"

Obama wont. I think he would be by far the more ridged.

[DividedThigh]

they are both bad, defeat them i say, lol,dt

[Baron1710]

Even though Obama has been far left in everything he has done, he received the endorsement of a very conservative constitutional scholar last month, Douglas W. Kmiec. Wonder if he (Doug) is looking for a spot on the Supreme Court? My biggest fear with both Obama and Hillary is the Supreme Court. That is one thing that W has done right, he got advice from conservatives about his appointments to the bench. His choices have been better than both Reagan's and his dad's.

[brotherjason]

Vote Constitutionalist and get all the Democrats (real and hidden with a R by their name) out!

:D

Chuck Baldwin for President!
Brother Price, something tells me we belong to the same party!:gaga

[Timmy]

I heard on the Rush Limbaugh show that a professor from Michigan who is Republican is going to vote Democrat for the Primary and will vote for Hillary just to throw the vote away from Obama. Not a bad idea. He is on his own radio show in Michigan and has great influence over many. So this may be a trend. Then in November he will switch back and vote Mc Cain in office.

As far as your question, I know that Hillary is the lessor or the 2 evils. IMHO

Oh, that's mature. Why don't all the Republicans mess with the Dem primaries, and get Peewee Herman nominated? That'll show 'em.

[Ferd]

Even though Obama has been far left in everything he has done, he received the endorsement of a very conservative constitutional scholar last month, Douglas W. Kmiec. Wonder if he (Doug) is looking for a spot on the Supreme Court? My biggest fear with both Obama and Hillary is the Supreme Court. That is one thing that W has done right, he got advice from conservatives about his appointments to the bench. His choices have been better than both Reagan's and his dad's.

This is an execelent point.

[Ferd]

Oh, that's mature. Why don't all the Republicans mess with the Dem primaries, and get Peewee Herman nominated? That'll show 'em.

Timmy, Dems do it too. McCain won several states in 2000 because Dems crossed over and voted for him.

[DividedThigh]

Timmy, Dems do it too. McCain won several states in 2000 because Dems crossed over and voted for him.

very true, dems dont want to be reminded of the past only the future plans they have to mess everything up, lol,dt:bliss

[Blubayou]

I definitely think Hilary is the lesser of the two evils. I am concerned about Hilary's hunger for power and her track record when she had a little power. But I am more concerned about Obama's true ideology, his appointments and the people he will surround himself with as president.

[TRFrance]

I heard on the Rush Limbaugh show that a professor from Michigan who is Republican is going to vote Democrat for the Primary and will vote for Hillary just to throw the vote away from Obama. Not a bad idea. He is on his own radio show in Michigan and has great influence over many. So this may be a trend. Then in November he will switch back and vote Mc Cain in office.


Rush Limbaugh has been doing it for a while now. Its called Operation Chaos. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Operation_Chaos) It seems to be really having an effect too. After winning big on Super Tuesday, Obama should have wrapped up this nomination a long time ago. I think crossover Republicans voting for Hillary has helped her hang in there and prolong the fight. (Of course this Jeremiah Wright dude probably had a little something to do with it too. )

[TRFrance]

Even though Obama has been far left in everything he has done, he received the endorsement of a very conservative constitutional scholar last month, Douglas W. Kmiec. Wonder if he (Doug) is looking for a spot on the Supreme Court? My biggest fear with both Obama and Hillary is the Supreme Court. That is one thing that W has done right, he got advice from conservatives about his appointments to the bench. His choices have been better than both Reagan's and his dad's.

Indeed. I think most people are overlooking the significance of that.
some bad decisions by a president might have an effect for a few years, and sometimes can can be undone by the next president...

But since a president's Supreme Court appointments are permanent, a bunch of bad SC appointments can have harmful effects on our nation for an entire generation and beyond!

8 years of Obama could be a nightmare for America. He'd probably get to appoint at least 2 (and maybe even 3!) liberal judges during that time, and it would shift America even more in the wrong direction.

[Baron1710]

Indeed. I think most people are overlooking the significance of that.
some bad decisions by a president might have an effect for a few years, and sometimes can can be undone by the next president...

But since a president's Supreme Court appointments are permanent, a bunch of bad SC appointments can have harmful effects on our nation for an entire generation and beyond!

8 years of Obama could be a nightmare for America. He'd probably get to appoint at least 2 (and maybe even 3!) liberal judges during that time, and it would shift America even more in the wrong direction.

John Paul Stevens is 88 years old

Antonin Scalia is 72

Anthony M. Kennedy is 72

David H. Souter is 68

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75

Stephen G. Breyer is 68

Fortunately, of the oldest members only one is a true conservative (Scalia) and Kennedy is a wild card. Ginsburg looks and sounds bad. I was in the court last year when she had to be helped off the bench.

[Ferd]

A lot of times people think the only thing the Supreme Court impacts is Abortion. that simply is wrong. In fact while important to most of us here, Abortion is a very minor part of the story.

Liberal Judges have for the last half century worked to make the court into a second and even more powerful legislative branch of government.

That isn’t the role of the court but it has become its role repeatedly.

The simple fact is, with that kind of attitude, 5 people who never face election have the power to make any decision they want to make, without facing any repercussion.

Currently liberals have virtually abandoned passing legislation that would outlaw handguns… but that doesn’t mean they have given up. Instead, they wait for the day when 5 members of the U. S. Supreme Court will outlaw handguns.

Liberals will appoint justices that think their job is to advocate for various groups. That IS NOT what the court is supposed to be about. It is about making sure the law is legal. Nothing more.

[Baron1710]

A lot of times people think the only thing the Supreme Court impacts is Abortion. that simply is wrong. In fact while important to most of us here, Abortion is a very minor part of the story.

Liberal Judges have for the last half century worked to make the court into a second and even more powerful legislative branch of government.

That isn’t the role of the court but it has become its role repeatedly.

The simple fact is, with that kind of attitude, 5 people who never face election have the power to make any decision they want to make, without facing any repercussion.

Currently liberals have virtually abandoned passing legislation that would outlaw handguns… but that doesn’t mean they have given up. Instead, they wait for the day when 5 members of the U. S. Supreme Court will outlaw handguns.

Liberals will appoint justices that think their job is to advocate for various groups. That IS NOT what the court is supposed to be about. It is about making sure the law is legal. Nothing more.

Amen.

Jay Sekulow likes to say, "Winning at the Supreme Court is easy, all you have to be able to do is count to five." We are fortunate right now to have 4 conservatives and Kennedy who after several years of being on the liberal majority seems to be more inclined to vote with the conservative justices.

Ferd if you are interested the recent second amendment case audio is available on www.oyez.org

This is one of the most interesting cases I have heard in a long time.

[DividedThigh]

A lot of times people think the only thing the Supreme Court impacts is Abortion. that simply is wrong. In fact while important to most of us here, Abortion is a very minor part of the story.

Liberal Judges have for the last half century worked to make the court into a second and even more powerful legislative branch of government.

That isn’t the role of the court but it has become its role repeatedly.

The simple fact is, with that kind of attitude, 5 people who never face election have the power to make any decision they want to make, without facing any repercussion.

Currently liberals have virtually abandoned passing legislation that would outlaw handguns… but that doesn’t mean they have given up. Instead, they wait for the day when 5 members of the U. S. Supreme Court will outlaw handguns.

Liberals will appoint justices that think their job is to advocate for various groups. That IS NOT what the court is supposed to be about. It is about making sure the law is legal. Nothing more.

if there ever is a revolution in this country it will be over guns, i allready have mine, count to 5 , cool, dt

[Ferd]

Amen.

Jay Sekulow likes to say, "Winning at the Supreme Court is easy, all you have to be able to do is count to five." We are fortunate right now to have 4 conservatives and Kennedy who after several years of being on the liberal majority seems to be more inclined to vote with the conservative justices.

Ferd if you are interested the recent second amendment case audio is available on www.oyez.org

This is one of the most interesting cases I have heard in a long time.

I will check out the link.

that recent case is very important.

[Pressing-On]

Amen.

Jay Sekulow likes to say, "Winning at the Supreme Court is easy, all you have to be able to do is count to five." We are fortunate right now to have 4 conservatives and Kennedy who after several years of being on the liberal majority seems to be more inclined to vote with the conservative justices.

Ferd if you are interested the recent second amendment case audio is available on www.oyez.org

This is one of the most interesting cases I have heard in a long time.
Thanks for the link!!!! I love it!!!

[Baron1710]

I will check out the link.

that recent case is very important.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/argument/

This is the link to the actual oral argument sometimes they can be hard to find until you are familiar with the site.

If I had to bet based on the questions Kennedy keeps asking in this oral argument, the DC gun ban is going to shot down.

[TRFrance]

Amen.

Jay Sekulow likes to say, "Winning at the Supreme Court is easy, all you have to be able to do is count to five." We are fortunate right now to have 4 conservatives and Kennedy who after several years of being on the liberal majority seems to be more inclined to vote with the conservative justices.

Getting wiser in his old age, I see.
:bliss

[DividedThigh]

Getting wiser in his old age, I see.
:bliss

one would hope, dt:boxing

[Pressing-On]

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/argument/

This is the link to the actual oral argument sometimes they can be hard to find until you are familiar with the site.

If I had to bet based on the questions Kennedy keeps asking in this oral argument, the DC gun ban is going to shot down.

Oh my goodness. This is so interesting!!! Thanks for the link. I'll probably listen to it several times!!! Love it!!!

[Baron1710]

Oh my goodness. This is so interesting!!! Thanks for the link. I'll probably listen to it several times!!! Love it!!!

No problem, though I don't know about listening to it several times. That particular argument is a bit longer than most, as a rule they are limited to 30 min each.

[Pressing-On]

No problem, though I don't know about listening to it several times. That particular argument is a bit longer than most, as a rule they are limited to 30 min each.

LOL! I didn't mean that I would do that on the same day, but believe me, I will listen to it again.

[ChristopherHall]

Guys...in all honesty it's a game. It doesn't matter who is better or worse out of Obama or Hillary. The Democratic front running is always touted as "the most liberal Democrat". It's designed to galvinize the conservative voting block against the front runner. If Hillary was front runner right now they would argue that she was the most liberal.

The voting history of any candidate is easily manipulated to look however they want it t look.

Here’s an example: Health care is a leading issue among Democrats. Clinton’s health care plan has far more government mandates and subsidies than Obama’s. So on what might be the greatest issue the Democrats are running on Hillary is obviously far more liberal and would spend far more tax payer dollars.

It’s a shell game. Don’t buy into it.

[Baron1710]

Guys...in all honesty it's a game. It doesn't matter who is better or worse out of Obama or Hillary. The Democratic front running is always touted as "the most liberal Democrat". It's designed to galvinize the conservative voting block against the front runner. If Hillary was front runner right now they would argue that she was the most liberal.

The voting history of any candidate is easily manipulated to look however they want it t look.

Sorry for being so stupid and uninformed. Can't believe I didn't see that myself. Oh wise one who knows all, teach us that we may be able to discern truth from those evil spin doctors of the right.

[TRFrance]

Sorry for being so stupid and uninformed. Can't believe I didn't see that myself. Oh wise one who knows all, teach us that we may be able to discern truth from those evil spin doctors of the right.
:toofunny

(TIC alert!!):

Yea... he speaketh words of wisdom daily. He droppeth knowledge upon thine head. Like the dewdrops of the morning, like rain from the heavens, so he droppeth his wisdom upon thee.

If thou shalt be wise, hearken thou unto the words of Chris Hall. Deep wisdom floweth from his lips. Sit thou at his feet, thou silly conservative, and learn knowledge! Selah.
:bliss

[Timmy]

Timmy, Dems do it too. McCain won several states in 2000 because Dems crossed over and voted for him.

Oh, I'm sure you're right! Dirty tricks abound, on both sides. I hate politics. ;)

[Baron1710]

Oh, I'm sure you're right! Dirty tricks abound, on both sides. I hate politics. ;)

The reality is most people won't even get out of bed to vote for the candidate they want. If they have to switch parties (as they do in some states) in order to vote in the primary, I doubt they really sway the vote that much. The polls have been pretty consistent in their point spreads, so the Republicans haven't screwed up the Democratic primary too much. The reality is Obama can't seem to win in states that do not have a high concentration of black voters. So Hillary wins states like Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.

[Ferd]

Guys...in all honesty it's a game. It doesn't matter who is better or worse out of Obama or Hillary. The Democratic front running is always touted as "the most liberal Democrat". It's designed to galvinize the conservative voting block against the front runner. If Hillary was front runner right now they would argue that she was the most liberal.

The voting history of any candidate is easily manipulated to look however they want it t look.

Here’s an example: Health care is a leading issue among Democrats. Clinton’s health care plan has far more government mandates and subsidies than Obama’s. So on what might be the greatest issue the Democrats are running on Hillary is obviously far more liberal and would spend far more tax payer dollars.

It’s a shell game. Don’t buy into it.

rolls eyes.

[TRFrance]

The reality is most people won't even get out of bed to vote for the candidate they want. If they have to switch parties (as they do in some states) in order to vote in the primary, I doubt they really sway the vote that much. The polls have been pretty consistent in their point spreads, so the Republicans haven't screwed up the Democratic primary too much. The reality is Obama can't seem to win in states that do not have a high concentration of black voters. So Hillary wins states like Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.

Well, in fairness to B.O., he won Iowa (which is 93% white), Washington, Wisconsin,Alaska, to Dakota, Maine, and several other states with a relatively small black population.

Of course, most of those victories were before the Jeremiah Wright thing exploded on him.

Race is definitely a factor, so we'll see how things go in November against McCain.

[Ferd]

Well, in fairness to B.O., he won Iowa (which is 93% white), Washington, Wisconsin,Alaska, to Dakota, Maine, and several other states with a relatively small black population.

Of course, most of those victories were before the Jeremiah Wright thing exploded on him.

Race is definitely a factor, so we'll see how things go in November against McCain.

I am going to be honest with you. today I am quite the pessimist.

I dont care which of these too idiots wins the dem nomination, the dems will win the presidency. they will also pick up 50 seats in the house and just might end up with 60 seats in the senate.

we are looking at a pretty bleak 2 to 4 years.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/latest_results_from_rasmussen_markets

[Ron]

I am going to be honest with you. today I am quite the pessimist.

I dont care which of these too idiots wins the dem nomination, the dems will win the presidency. they will also pick up 50 seats in the house and just might end up with 60 seats in the senate.

we are looking at a pretty bleak 2 to 4 years.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/latest_results_from_rasmussen_markets

Only 2-4 years?

I am lifting up my head and looking for Jesus.

It is getting that bad & I echo D4T I would love to be wrong and have you be right Ferd-but I don't think I am.

[DividedThigh]

I am going to be honest with you. today I am quite the pessimist.

I dont care which of these too idiots wins the dem nomination, the dems will win the presidency. they will also pick up 50 seats in the house and just might end up with 60 seats in the senate.

we are looking at a pretty bleak 2 to 4 years.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/latest_results_from_rasmussen_markets

i hate to say it but you could be right especially with the pretenders around who claim to be cons but just want handouts, and me to pay more taxes, good grief, lol,dt:reaction

[Ferd]

Only 2-4 years?

I am lifting up my head and looking for Jesus.

It is getting that bad & I echo D4T I would love to be wrong and have you be right Ferd-but I don't think I am.

well, politically speaking.

It is likely that in 2 years, the electoriate could change on the Dems and give back control of congress to the republicans. it wouldnt be unusual. in fact that would be typical. 4 years from now there will be another presidential election. if the dem president doesnt do very well, it is also likely that they would be ousted.

if you are talking economy... well all bets are off if a dem gets elected.

i will tell you as of today, we have not been in a resession. It is possible that by the 3rd quarter, we will see the bottom of this cycle and start moving up.

that means while the economy is certainly slowing, we have yet to see actual contraction (the definition of resession).

dems getting elected could very well spell doom for the economy because they will raise taxes on those who drive the economy, they will raise capital gain taxes, which really reduce investment.

they will create a greater divide between energy demand and engery supply (driving up costs).

[DividedThigh]

scarwy thoughts ferd, lol, dt:crazywalls

[TRFrance]

I am going to be honest with you. today I am quite the pessimist.

I dont care which of these too idiots wins the dem nomination, the dems will win the presidency. they will also pick up 50 seats in the house and just might end up with 60 seats in the senate.

we are looking at a pretty bleak 2 to 4 years.


Maybe 8 years if Obama is president.

[Ferd]

Maybe 8 years if Obama is president.

well, that would really depend on a number of things.

Obama has a certain quality that just might be able to reduce the level of rankor or to shift the blame for any rankor to the other side.

that would be balanced with a very hard left approach to government. hard left policy IMHO will lead to serious economic issues....

so, while possible, not entirely a foregone conclusion.

[DividedThigh]

god help us, dt:reaction

[Ferd]

scarwy thoughts ferd, lol, dt:crazywalls

well, like I said, Im very pessimistic today. maybe tomorrow I will be more of my old chipper self.


by the way, yesterday the dollar held its own against the Euro even though Oil hit $120. that is a pretty good sign.

the test will be thru the rest of the week. if it stays below 1.5500 we stand a good chance of seeing the dollar sub 1.50 within the next month.

[DividedThigh]

well, like I said, Im very pessimistic today. maybe tomorrow I will be more of my old chipper self.


by the way, yesterday the dollar held its own against the Euro even though Oil hit $120. that is a pretty good sign.

the test will be thru the rest of the week. if it stays below 1.5500 we stand a good chance of seeing the dollar sub 1.50 within the next month.

well at least you are sounding more positive, lol,dt:happydance

[ChristopherHall]

Sorry for being so stupid and uninformed. Can't believe I didn't see that myself. Oh wise one who knows all, teach us that we may be able to discern truth from those evil spin doctors of the right.


(TIC alert!!):

Yea... he speaketh words of wisdom daily. He droppeth knowledge upon thine head. Like the dewdrops of the morning, like rain from the heavens, so he droppeth his wisdom upon thee.

If thou shalt be wise, hearken thou unto the words of Chris Hall. Deep wisdom floweth from his lips. Sit thou at his feet, thou silly conservative, and learn knowledge! Selah.

I was simply sharing my thoughts on the topic as presented in the subject title of the thread. Why go personal? If you see it too, just agree. Then we move on and have a discussion.

I’m also surprised to see so much pessimism among our conservative brethren. I think we’ll see that it’s the Democratic candidate who is in an uphill battle for the White House in the General election. McCain has the ability and the record to present himself far more moderate than Bush…but not as far left as the Democrats. Right now…things look pretty good for McCain. What will make or break him will be how he stands after his policies are compared to the Democratic policies. If he looks like Bush III he’s definitely doomed. But if he looks like a level headed, pragmatic leader who is willing to work with both parties to get things done he’s going to steal the show. The Democrat will come off looking ideological and extreme. McCain’s even been impressing me here and there…and according to most around here I’m a commie socialist.

Though y’all will insult me for it…those are a few of my thoughts.

[Pressing-On]

well, like I said, Im very pessimistic today. maybe tomorrow I will be more of my old chipper self.


by the way, yesterday the dollar held its own against the Euro even though Oil hit $120. that is a pretty good sign.

the test will be thru the rest of the week. if it stays below 1.5500 we stand a good chance of seeing the dollar sub 1.50 within the next month.

Ferd,
I'm understanding, as per Star Parker. that McCain has a better health plan he has constructed and presenting.

Do you believe that McCain could pull out in the polls depending on who he picks as his VP?

[DividedThigh]

I was simply sharing my thoughts on the topic as presented in the subject title of the thread. Why go personal? If you see it too, just agree. Then we move on and have a discussion.

I’m also surprised to see so much pessimism among our conservative brethren. I think we’ll see that it’s the Democratic candidate who is in an uphill battle for the White House in the General election. McCain has the ability and the record to present himself far more moderate than Bush…but not as far left as the Democrats. Right now…things look pretty good for McCain. What will make or break him will be how he stands after his policies are compared to the Democratic policies. If he looks like Bush III he’s definitely doomed. But if he looks like a level headed, pragmatic leader who is willing to work with both parties to get things done he’s going to steal the show. The Democrat will come off looking ideological and extreme. McCain’s even been impressing me here and there…and according to most around here I’m a commie socialist.

Though y’all will insult me for it…those are a few of my thoughts.

you arent, lol, dt:blah

[Ferd]

I was simply sharing my thoughts on the topic as presented in the subject title of the thread. Why go personal? If you see it too, just agree. Then we move on and have a discussion.

I’m also surprised to see so much pessimism among our conservative brethren. I think we’ll see that it’s the Democratic candidate who is in an uphill battle for the White House in the General election. McCain has the ability and the record to present himself far more moderate than Bush…but not as far left as the Democrats. Right now…things look pretty good for McCain. What will make or break him will be how he stands after his policies are compared to the Democratic policies. If he looks like Bush III he’s definitely doomed. But if he looks like a level headed, pragmatic leader who is willing to work with both parties to get things done he’s going to steal the show. The Democrat will come off looking ideological and extreme. McCain’s even been impressing me here and there…and according to most around here I’m a commie socialist.

Though y’all will insult me for it…those are a few of my thoughts.


my friend, mod/lib/con isnt the issue in this election. I am sorry to say the number one issue in this election is "Changy Change Change".

I honestly dont know exactly what "Changy Change Change" is but I do know that for far too many voters in this election, "Changy Change Change" is the single most important "issue".

this reflects on the poor quality of education on matters of politics this country suffers from.

[DividedThigh]

my friend, mod/lib/con isnt the issue in this election. I am sorry to say the number one issue in this election is "Changy Change Change".

I honestly dont know exactly what "Changy Change Change" is but I do know that for far too many voters in this election, "Changy Change Change" is the single most important "issue".

this reflects on the poor quality of education on matters of politics this country suffers from.

just reeks of naivite, doesnt it, change , change change, what and where, osama isnt a change, just a different package, hilary isnt a change, just more billy, lol,dt

[Baron1710]

my friend, mod/lib/con isnt the issue in this election. I am sorry to say the number one issue in this election is "Changy Change Change".

I honestly dont know exactly what "Changy Change Change" is but I do know that for far too many voters in this election, "Changy Change Change" is the single most important "issue".

this reflects on the poor quality of education on matters of politics this country suffers from.

It's about how much change will they let me keep!! Maybe even a whole dollar now and then.

[Ferd]

Ferd,
I'm understanding, as per Star Parker. that McCain has a better health plan he has constructed and presenting.

Do you believe that McCain could pull out in the polls depending on who he picks as his VP?

Honestly? If the dems had picked Joe Biden or Bill Richardson it wouldn’t matter if John McCain picked Gandhi or Jesus himself as a vice presidential candidate.

The Dems would have won hands down period. Because "Changy Change Change" is the only thing that really matters this year.

However, the Dems picked the two worst possible candidates to choose from. NOT because of their politics but because
1. Hillary has too high of negatives and is a woman
2. Obama has no valid experience and is black.

That leaves a slight door ajar depending on a couple of things.
1. If Hillary is nominated, Obama's supporters may not vote for her. He has very high support from people who have never voted before. With their hopes dashed, they might stay home.
2. If Obama is nominated, there is a chance that white working class (read Union) men in places like Penn. and Mich. just might turn their collective noses up to "the black guy" and vote for McCain.
3. We don’t know much about Obama but there is a slow trickle coming out right now.
a. Rev. Wright
b. William Aiers
c. Tony Resco
d. association with ACORN

These things can serve to make Obama look like a radical liberal with serious ethics issues.

4. Hillary has never had a likeability rating of 50%. You can’t get elected if more than half the people simply don’t like you.

5. McCain is the only Republican that "Changy Change Change" independents would be willing to vote for. They aint smart but they like McCain.

Now we get pretty far down the road.

But when it comes to the VP, it has more potential to hurt than help (see GHW Bush and Dan Quail and Walter Mondale and Geraldine Fararro.)

But a VP has to provide something.
Does McCain take the gov. of Florida? McCain cannot win the Whitehouse without Florida.
Does he find someone well liked in either Mich. or Penn? The dems cannot win without both of those states.

Does McCain have enough of a deficiency in the area of the economy that he needs a boost there?
In my opinion, I don’t think the VP candidate will have a big impact on the Republican candidate because John McCain is such a well known guy.

[Ferd]

It's about how much change will they let me keep!! Maybe even a whole dollar now and then.

That is because you are smart.

the unwashed masses sniff the air, decide they dont like something (but they dont know what) and decide we need change.

its crazy.

[Ferd]

just reeks of naivite, doesnt it, change , change change, what and where, osama isnt a change, just a different package, hilary isnt a change, just more billy, lol,dt

You are so nice. Im not that nice. naivite is your nice way of saying what I am thinking which I wont post because while not vulgar is more unkind than I want to be (remember today I said someone needed to be sent to pakistan with a sign that says "Mohammad aint that great")

[DividedThigh]

Honestly? If the dems had picked Joe Biden or Bill Richardson it wouldn’t matter if John McCain picked Gandhi or Jesus himself as a vice presidential candidate.

The Dems would have won hands down period. Because "Changy Change Change" is the only thing that really matters this year.

However, the Dems picked the two worst possible candidates to choose from. NOT because of their politics but because
1. Hillary has too high of negatives and is a woman
2. Obama has no valid experience and is black.

That leaves a slight door ajar depending on a couple of things.
1. If Hillary is nominated, Obama's supporters may not vote for her. He has very high support from people who have never voted before. With their hopes dashed, they might stay home.
2. If Obama is nominated, there is a chance that white working class (read Union) men in places like Penn. and Mich. just might turn their collective noses up to "the black guy" and vote for McCain.
3. We don’t know much about Obama but there is a slow trickle coming out right now.
a. Rev. Wright
b. William Aiers
c. Tony Resco
d. association with ACORN

These things can serve to make Obama look like a radical liberal with serious ethics issues.

4. Hillary has never had a likeability rating of 50%. You can’t get elected if more than half the people simply don’t like you.

5. McCain is the only Republican that "Changy Change Change" independents would be willing to vote for. They aint smart but they like McCain.

Now we get pretty far down the road.

But when it comes to the VP, it has more potential to hurt than help (see GHW Bush and Dan Quail and Walter Mondale and Geraldine Fararro.)

But a VP has to provide something.
Does McCain take the gov. of Florida? McCain cannot win the Whitehouse without Florida.
Does he find someone well liked in either Mich. or Penn? The dems cannot win without both of those states.

Does McCain have enough of a deficiency in the area of the economy that he needs a boost there?
In my opinion, I don’t think the VP candidate will have a big impact on the Republican candidate because John McCain is such a well known guy.

change beats a big credit card bill hands down, the dems will tax and spend us into oblivion just lke is happenning now, mccain just might be a little more restrained on the spending, it could help, we will see, dt

[DividedThigh]

You are so nice. Im not that nice. naivite is your nice way of saying what I am thinking which I wont post because while not vulgar is more unkind than I want to be (remember today I said someone needed to be sent to pakistan with a sign that says "Mohammad aint that great")

yeah i know, you crack me up , beats crying, lol,dt:bliss

[Ferd]

change beats a big credit card bill hands down, the dems will tax and spend us into oblivion just lke is happenning now, mccain just might be a little more restrained on the spending, it could help, we will see, dt

Let me give you the single reason why McCain cannot win.

No one has EVER been elected president from the same party as a sitting president with a popularity rating below 50%

GWB's rating is in the mid 30's.

[Ron]

Let me give you the single reason why McCain cannot win.

No one has EVER been elected president from the same party as a sitting president with a popularity rating below 50%

GWB's rating is in the mid 30's.

Actually 27% is what I heard & even then I think the numbers are fudged upwards by about 30%!:hypercoffee

[DividedThigh]

Actually 27% is what I heard & even then I think the numbers are fudged upwards by about 30%!:hypercoffee

ok , that is interesting, we will see, and ron why do you care, arent you a canadian, lol, dt:bliss

[Ferd]

Actually 27% is what I heard & even then I think the numbers are fudged upwards by about 30%!:hypercoffee

Ron, I am rarely wrong about these things....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval

May 2
34 Approve
63 Disapprove

Apr 2008
34 Approve
63 Disapprove

Mar 2008
36 Approve
61 Disapprove

Feb 2008
37 Approve
60 Disapprove

Jan 2008
38 Approve
59 Disapprove

Dec
37 Approve
60 Disapprove

Nov
37 Approve
60 Disapprove

Oct
37 Approve
61 Disapprove

Sep
38 Approve
59 Disapprove

Aug
38 Approve
59 Disapprove

Jul
38 Approve
60 Disapprove

Jun
35 Approve
62 Disapprove

May
36 Approve
61 Disapprove

Apr
39 Approve
59 Disapprove

Mar
40 Approve
58 Disapprove

Feb
41 Approve
57 Disapprove

Jan 2007
41 Approve
57 Disapprove

[Ferd]

ok , that is interesting, we will see, and ron why do you care, arent you a canadian, lol, dt:bliss

Ron understands the fundimental fact that Canada should really be part of the USA.

[DividedThigh]

Ron understands the fundimental fact that Canada should really be part of the USA.

well it would give me another local fishin hole for sure, lol,dt:bliss

[ChristopherHall]

I know Bush's approval rating is very low...but how do "conservatives" feel about him? Do you guys also disapprove of his performance?

[DividedThigh]

i am just surprised he put up with all the garbage for the last 7 plus years, while he is doing the right thing to fight the islamofascists, and try to keep us safe, imho, dt:boxing:boxing

[Ferd]

I know Bush's approval rating is very low...but how do "conservatives" feel about him? Do you guys also disapprove of his performance?

I suspect that is why the rating is so low.

I would have to look but I suspect if you look at when the immagration thing blew up last year, Bush dipped from the mid 40's to the mid 30's because conservitives became dissapointed in his stance on that issue.


Bush is hated by the left in an almost pathalogical way.
Bush is a disappointment to the right because of medicade reform, immigration reform and on over all spending.

those in the middle disapprove because their attention span is more related to heating burritos in thier microwave than it is related to understanding the nuance of fighting a protracted war against a dangerous idology.

so GWB gets hit from all sides. I am not happy with him for the stated conservitive reasons, and because of an abject failure of the adminstration in communicating the goals, and successes of the war on terror.

i am also disappointed with him for failing to control republicans in congress and letting them turn into Democrat light.

so, yea, GWB isnt approved of by cons either.

[Ron]

Ron understands the fundimental fact that Canada should really be part of the USA.

So wil Mexico. The North American Union is coming and it is going to be neither what you and I want!

We aren't the "nobs" though.

[Ron]

ok , that is interesting, we will see, and ron why do you care, arent you a canadian, lol, dt:bliss

I am just surprised that he could get 30%.

[Ferd]

So wil Mexico. The North American Union is coming and it is going to be neither what you and I want!

We aren't the "nobs" though.

sigh, if we had only won the battle of Qubec....

[Ron]

sigh, if we had only won the battle of Qubec....

You can have Quebec! I think you will get tired of the whining though.:blah

What battle of Quebec are you speaking of?

[Ferd]

You can have Quebec! I think you will get tired of the whining though.:blah

What battle of Quebec are you speaking of?

well, we lost 2 battles of Quebec! and you are right. but the Americans would have forced them to speak english and stop being french so Canada and America would both be better!

[ChristopherHall]

I have an opinion on the “change, change, change” cry throughout the land. My family is about to loose our home (please keep us in prayer; we’re supposed to know sometime this week if we can work out a deal if they don’t ask for more information to start the process all over again like they have twice). I know several other families who have already lost their homes. Here in the Midwest there are vast numbers of laid off workers who watched their jobs move overseas and have quit looking for work or are now working in fast food and lower paying service jobs. Families are watching their grocery bill steadily rise while they are throwing more and more money into their gas tanks to get to the jobs they’re lucky to have. I know businesses that are being slowly strangled to death by rising operation costs (partly due to rising fuel costs) and health care costs for their employees. There are families who have children and parents engaged in a war without any perceivable end that may have been preemptively launched based on flawed intelligence…or worse…false pretenses.

I think the “change, change, change”, is actually… “Help, help, help, we’re hurting, hurting, hurting, and loosing all we’ve worked for as Americans.”

Here’s my advice for the next President whoever they may be, regardless of party….

“Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquility.” – Daniel 4:27

The people and families are groaning under the failed polices of the current king.

[Baron1710]

I have an opinion on the “change, change, change” cry throughout the land. My family is about to loose our home (please keep us in prayer; we’re supposed to know sometime this week if we can work out a deal if they don’t ask for more information to start the process all over again like they have twice). I know several other families who have already lost their homes. Here in the Midwest there are vast numbers of laid off workers who watched their jobs move overseas and have quit looking for work or are now working in fast food and lower paying service jobs. Families are watching their grocery bill steadily rise while they are throwing more and more money into their gas tanks to get to the jobs they’re lucky to have. I know businesses that are being slowly strangled to death by rising operation costs (partly due to rising fuel costs) and health care costs for their employees. There are families who have children and parents engaged in a war without any perceivable end that may have been preemptively launched based on flawed intelligence…or worse…false pretenses.

I think the “change, change, change”, is actually… “Help, help, help, we’re hurting, hurting, hurting, and loosing all we’ve worked for as Americans.”

Here’s my advice for the next President whoever they may be, regardless of party….

“Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquility.” – Daniel 4:27

The people and families are groaning under the failed polices of the current king.

So long as we are giving advice to Presidents...

Remember after Solomon died and his son took the advice of the young men to raise the taxes? He should have listened to the old men who told him to cut the people some slack. Taxing me more to pay for more socialist programs is a mistake.

[Ferd]

So long as we are giving advice to Presidents...

Remember after Solomon died and his son took the advice of the young men to raise the taxes? He should have listened to the old men who told him to cut the people some slack. Taxing me more to pay for more socialist programs is a mistake.

You know what is really interesting?

in the middle ages, when a Lord raised the taxes on the pesants to 15% they generally revolted.

[ChristopherHall]

So long as we are giving advice to Presidents...

Remember after Solomon died and his son took the advice of the young men to raise the taxes? He should have listened to the old men who told him to cut the people some slack. Taxing me more to pay for more socialist programs is a mistake.

No doubt bro. The way I look at it, unless the program benefits all who pay taxes into it...cut it, especially in times like these.

[Baron1710]

You know what is really interesting?

in the middle ages, when a Lord raised the taxes on the pesants to 15% they generally revolted.

It seems more and more people are happy to have the government take what they make and give them back what the government thinks they need, food stamps, housing, healthcare, etc. I did an international law program in France and our host family was upset at the idea of having to work 38 hours a week. They felt the government owed them a job, at no more than 35 hours a week, and at least 5 weeks vacation.

[Ferd]

I have an opinion on the “change, change, change” cry throughout the land. My family is about to loose our home (please keep us in prayer; we’re supposed to know sometime this week if we can work out a deal if they don’t ask for more information to start the process all over again like they have twice). I know several other families who have already lost their homes. Here in the Midwest there are vast numbers of laid off workers who watched their jobs move overseas and have quit looking for work or are now working in fast food and lower paying service jobs. Families are watching their grocery bill steadily rise while they are throwing more and more money into their gas tanks to get to the jobs they’re lucky to have. I know businesses that are being slowly strangled to death by rising operation costs (partly due to rising fuel costs) and health care costs for their employees. There are families who have children and parents engaged in a war without any perceivable end that may have been preemptively launched based on flawed intelligence…or worse…false pretenses.

I think the “change, change, change”, is actually… “Help, help, help, we’re hurting, hurting, hurting, and loosing all we’ve worked for as Americans.”

Here’s my advice for the next President whoever they may be, regardless of party….

“Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquility.” – Daniel 4:27

The people and families are groaning under the failed polices of the current king.



Chris, I truely hope you dont loose your house. And I have been praying for you in this situation. but bro, that aint the end of the world. you still have a good job and you can simply move on. millions of us have already paved the road.

[Ferd]

It seems more and more people are happy to have the government take what they make and give them back what the government thinks they need, food stamps, housing, healthcare, etc. I did an international law program in France and our host family was upset at the idea of having to work 38 hours a week. They felt the government owed them a job, at no more than 35 hours a week, and at least 5 weeks vacation.

that french attitude, I fear is slowly creeping into America.

[Baron1710]

Chris, I truely hope you dont loose your house. And I have been praying for you in this situation. but bro, that aint the end of the world. you still have a good job and you can simply move on. millions of us have already paved the road.

I second that. It is a tough thing to loose your house but it’s not the end of the world. I lost one about 10 years ago, but my family has survived, and we never missed a meal. One time we sent the kids to school with stale hamburger buns and peanut butter, but they never went hungry. I will pray for you.

[Praxeas]

Guys...in all honesty it's a game. It doesn't matter who is better or worse out of Obama or Hillary. The Democratic front running is always touted as "the most liberal Democrat". It's designed to galvinize the conservative voting block against the front runner. If Hillary was front runner right now they would argue that she was the most liberal.

The voting history of any candidate is easily manipulated to look however they want it t look.

Here’s an example: Health care is a leading issue among Democrats. Clinton’s health care plan has far more government mandates and subsidies than Obama’s. So on what might be the greatest issue the Democrats are running on Hillary is obviously far more liberal and would spend far more tax payer dollars.

It’s a shell game. Don’t buy into it.
So He is NOT more liberal than Clinton? Can you prove this?

[ChristopherHall]

It seems more and more people are happy to have the government take what they make and give them back what the government thinks they need, food stamps, housing, healthcare, etc. I did an international law program in France and our host family was upset at the idea of having to work 38 hours a week. They felt the government owed them a job, at no more than 35 hours a week, and at least 5 weeks vacation.

I know a family from Italy who’s spent considerable time in France and the Netherlands that feels the same way. Of course I asked why they felt that way. The wife answered and explained that they feel they need the time to be a “family”, to pursue faith, and health. She doesn’t like America. She tells me American families don’t have time to be a family like they do in Italy. I’m big on health care and so we talked a bit about that. She said America’s system is the most frustrating and confusing thing she’s ever seen. And she is absolutely floored at the cost. She’s wondering why we as a people don’t demand greater efficiency and services.

There’s a story about a Harvard President named Neil Rudenstine. He suffered from extreme burn out and nearly had a nervous breakdown. Rudenstine took a 3 month sabbatical to recoup. While away he realized that many of us have lost the concept of the sacred rhythm of rest and community. The ancients understood this to some degree and that old world thinking is still found in much of Europe today. It’s very alien to our workaholic, consumerist, non-stop, toil and struggle to acquire culture in America. Americans have never worked longer or harder. And I believe that if you look closely you’ll see that it’s the American family that suffers most. Divorce, crime, and mental/emotional breakdown are more prevalent in America than Europe. They invest in “humanity” as national community. That’s why liberal nations like Belgium have the lowest abortion rate on earth. They can breathe and raise a family without fear of absolute destitution.

I think welfare is an issue to be handled at the state level. I’d like to see health care addressed at the state level too but in America it seems that the federal government has to take the lead or no serious reform take place.

I have a question about something that I’ve yet to get a firm understanding about….

You had mentioned lighter taxes. What good are lighter taxes when the cost of other things like health care and fuel are steadily rising far beyond the savings we’d save if they cut all our taxes altogether? I mean, if they could negotiate a price for every citizen for a service (like health care) and subsidize it with a tax increase that is even less than what we pay for the same service right now including the negotiated premium, thereby landing more of your own money in your pocket, is that not lightening your burden?

****Not interested in directly debating health care. I’m just interested in understanding why the idea of a moderate tax increase with negotiated costs for a service that are lower than current free market cost is undesirable when we’d save more of our own money with it.****

[ChristopherHall]

So He is NOT more liberal than Clinton? Can you prove this?

Not on health care. LOL

I'd have to look at the issues individually. If Hillary is like her husband...she's more conservative than Obama. However, she's repeatedly voiced that she disagrees with her husband's economics which causes me to think she's quite possibly more liberal there too.

[Praxeas]

Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.

Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-international-socialist-connections/

[Baron1710]

I know a family from Italy who’s spent considerable time in France and the Netherlands that feels the same way. Of course I asked why they felt that way. The wife answered and explained that they feel they need the time to be a “family”, to pursue faith, and health. She doesn’t like America. She tells me American families don’t have time to be a family like they do in Italy. I’m big on health care and so we talked a bit about that. She said America’s system is the most frustrating and confusing thing she’s ever seen. And she is absolutely floored at the cost. She’s wondering why we as a people don’t demand greater efficiency and services.

There’s a story about a Harvard President named Neil Rudenstine. He suffered from extreme burn out and nearly had a nervous breakdown. Rudenstine took a 3 month sabbatical to recoup. While away he realized that many of us have lost the concept of the sacred rhythm of rest and community. The ancients understood this to some degree and that old world thinking is still found in much of Europe today. It’s very alien to our workaholic, consumerist, non-stop, toil and struggle to acquire culture in America. Americans have never worked longer or harder. And I believe that if you look closely you’ll see that it’s the American family that suffers most. Divorce, crime, and mental/emotional breakdown are more prevalent in America than Europe. They invest in “humanity” as national community. That’s why liberal nations like Belgium have the lowest abortion rate on earth. They can breathe and raise a family without fear of absolute destitution.

I think welfare is an issue to be handled at the state level. I’d like to see health care addressed at the state level too but in America it seems that the federal government has to take the lead or no serious reform take place.

I have a question about something that I’ve yet to get a firm understanding about….

You had mentioned lighter taxes. What good are lighter taxes when the cost of other things like health care and fuel are steadily rising far beyond the savings we’d save if they cut all our taxes altogether? I mean, if they could negotiate a price for every citizen for a service (like health care) and subsidize it with a tax increase that is even less than what we pay for the same service right now including the negotiated premium, thereby landing more of your own money in your pocket, is that not lightening your burden?

****Not interested in directly debating health care. I’m just interested in understanding why the idea of a moderate tax increase with negotiated costs for a service that are lower than current free market cost is undesirable when we’d save more of our own money with it.****

This will have to wait until tomorrow. I have got to get over to a Family Law Clinic, so I can help raise the divorce rate in America. The short answer is...

Taxes are high enough, if the government wants to do more with the money they take then they ought to cut their spending elsewhere. I don't get to go to my boss and say, "I spent my paycheck by Wednesday so I'm going to need a raise this week." The government gets plenty, I personally pay in more taxes now than I made just 5 years ago. NO MORE TAXES.

[ChristopherHall]

Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.

Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-international-socialist-connections/

You're right on que there swift. ;)

[ChristopherHall]

This will have to wait until tomorrow. I have got to get over to a Family Law Clinic, so I can help raise the divorce rate in America. The short answer is...

Taxes are high enough, if the government wants to do more with the money they take then they ought to cut their spending elsewhere. I don't get to go to my boss and say, "I spent my paycheck by Wednesday so I'm going to need a raise this week." The government gets plenty, I personally pay in more taxes now than I made just 5 years ago. NO MORE TAXES.

I look at the bottom line. Some families are paying $900 a month for services (let's keep the issue un-named) on the free market. If the government can negotiate a lower monthly cost of about $90 a month based on group rates and then subsidize it with a tax increase of about $100 for the same services (for a total monthly cost of about $190 to $200 a month)...that's one tax increase that would save some families nearly $700 a month. I'm sure these families would benefit from having an extra $700 of their own money in their pockets. Yours might be one of these families.

I'm interested in why so many would disagree with the above example seeing they'd keep more of their own money in a subsidized program with negotiated costs.

Primary question:

If the tax increase for a program would save you money...why would you oppose it?

[TRFrance]

You had mentioned lighter taxes. What good are lighter taxes when the cost of other things like health care and fuel are steadily rising far beyond the savings we’d save if they cut all our taxes altogether? I mean, if they could negotiate a price for every citizen for a service (like health care) and subsidize it with a tax increase that is even less than what we pay for the same service right now including the negotiated premium, thereby landing more of your own money in your pocket, is that not lightening your burden?

****Not interested in directly debating health care. I’m just interested in understanding why the idea of a moderate tax increase with negotiated costs for a service that are lower than current free market cost is undesirable when we’d save more of our own money with it.****


Its been proven that tax cuts, if done correctly, can actually increase revenue, because it stimulates economic activity and increases the movement of capital. The flow of money in the economy provides larger revenue even at the lower tax rate.

And tax increases many times will reduce revenue. Higher taxes reduces investment, reduces hiring by employers, and reduces the amount of money in the hands of businesses and consumers. This stifles economic growth, and causes a reduction of the flow of capital within the economy... leading to less tax revenue coming in, even with the higher tax rates.

Its a concept most liberals fail to understand, for some reason [even though it's been statistically observed over and over again!].

[ChristopherHall]

Its been proven that tax cuts, if done correctly, can actually increase revenue, because it stimulates economic activity and increases the movement of capital. The flow of money in the economy provides larger revenue even at the lower tax rate.

And tax increases many times will reduce revenue. Higher taxes reduces investment, reduces hiring by employers, and reduces the amount of money in the hands of businesses and consumers. This stifles economic growth, and causes a reduction of the flow of capital within the economy... leading to less tax revenue coming in, even with the higher tax rates.

Its a concept most liberals fail to understand, for some reason [even though it's been statistically observed over and over again!].

TRFrance....you're talking taxation on business and production.

I'm talking about individual income taxes. For example...imagine that America adopted a single payer national health insurance system. First, businesses would no longer be burdened with facilitating health insurance for employees. Suddenly individual Americans become responsible for their health insurance. The Government negotiates with the industry for lower premiums for citizens based on group rates. The government passes down a $90 monthly premium to households and increases income taxes nearly $110 dollars or so. A household's health insurance now costs only $200 a month instead of the $900 a month they were paying. Several things are accomplished....

-Business is unshackled and free from the burden to provide health insurance.

-Citizens pay lower premiums according government negotiated group rates and citizens are responsible for a percentage of this new reduced premium.

-Taxes are increased on individual to subsidize the system. However, the premium and tax increase combined is lower than the current premiums paid on the free market.

It appears that all would be winners. Total cost for your health insurance goes from $900 to $200, you now bring home an extra $700 with the government's program. I'm just looking for sound reasons to reject this proposal.

If increasing taxes with a federal or state program would ultimately cut overall costs for the individual...why oppose it?

[Pressing-On]

I suspect that is why the rating is so low.

I would have to look but I suspect if you look at when the immagration thing blew up last year, Bush dipped from the mid 40's to the mid 30's because conservitives became dissapointed in his stance on that issue.


Bush is hated by the left in an almost pathalogical way.
Bush is a disappointment to the right because of medicade reform, immigration reform and on over all spending.

Those in the middle disapprove because their attention span is more related to heating burritos in their microwave than it is related to understanding the nuance of fighting a protracted war against a dangerous ideology.

so GWB gets hit from all sides. I am not happy with him for the stated conservative reasons, and because of an abject failure of the administration in communicating the goals, and successes of the war on terror.

i am also disappointed with him for failing to control republicans in congress and letting them turn into Democrat light.

so, yea, GWB isn't approved of by cons either.
:toofunny :toofunny :toofunny :toofunny :toofunny

[Moe]

Oh, that's mature. Why don't all the Republicans mess with the Dem primaries, and get Peewee Herman nominated? That'll show 'em.

No, my dear that is called strategy. The republicans learned that trick from the democrats. Not mature in any sense of the word but very effective.:reaction:reaction

[Moe]

Rush Limbaugh has been doing it for a while now. Its called Operation Chaos. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Operation_Chaos) It seems to be really having an effect too. After winning big on Super Tuesday, Obama should have wrapped up this nomination a long time ago. I think crossover Republicans voting for Hillary has helped her hang in there and prolong the fight. (Of course this Jeremiah Wright dude probably had a little something to do with it too. )

agreed!!!! You are so right.

[Baron1710]

I look at the bottom line. Some families are paying $900 a month for services (let's keep the issue un-named) on the free market. If the government can negotiate a lower monthly cost of about $90 a month based on group rates and then subsidize it with a tax increase of about $100 for the same services (for a total monthly cost of about $190 to $200 a month)...that's one tax increase that would save some families nearly $700 a month. I'm sure these families would benefit from having an extra $700 of their own money in their pockets. Yours might be one of these families.

I'm interested in why so many would disagree with the above example seeing they'd keep more of their own money in a subsidized program with negotiated costs.

Primary question:

If the tax increase for a program would save you money...why would you oppose it?

First and foremost it is not anyone else’s responsibility to pay for my health care. I don't get to pick anybody's pocket to pay for things I need that is stealing. We have chosen the pay-as-you-go-plan. If we go to the doctor we pay.

Second, those numbers are whacky. When you put people on a medical plan where they have maximum that they pay, they will run to the doctor every time they have a sniffle. The cost of providing health care will sky rocket not decrease. Other than checkups or medical releases for sports my kids have not been to a doctor in 5 years. Check your local welfare recipient and see how often their kids go to the doctor. It’s the cost of illegals and people unwilling to pay clogging up our hospitals now that is causing so much of the problem with health care prices.

Socialized health care is fine if you need a band aid, but ask all those Canadians what they are going to do when they can't come over here and pay for a major surgery, because their system says, "ooops that’s all of those we are doing this year, sign up for your transplant next year maybe we can see you then." Think how sad all those Canadians will be when they don't have a free market system to fall back on. I guess our friends south of the border won't care because we already give them free health care, free market quality at the socialist price. What a deal.

And that Ladies and Gentleman is why Obama and Hillary make John McCain the lesser of those evils.

[TRFrance]

those in the middle disapprove because their attention span is more related to heating burritos in their microwave than it is related to understanding the nuance of fighting a protracted war against a dangerous ideology.


Indeed, many American voters are more informed and passionate about their burritos in the microwave, than about the real issues of our day.

The very fact that Obama is being treated like some kind of political Messiah is evidence of that.

[Pressing-On]

Honestly? If the dems had picked Joe Biden or Bill Richardson it wouldn’t matter if John McCain picked Gandhi or Jesus himself as a vice presidential candidate.

The Dems would have won hands down period. Because "Changy Change Change" is the only thing that really matters this year.

However, the Dems picked the two worst possible candidates to choose from. NOT because of their politics but because
1. Hillary has too high of negatives and is a woman
2. Obama has no valid experience and is black.

That leaves a slight door ajar depending on a couple of things.
1. If Hillary is nominated, Obama's supporters may not vote for her. He has very high support from people who have never voted before. With their hopes dashed, they might stay home.
2. If Obama is nominated, there is a chance that white working class (read Union) men in places like Penn. and Mich. just might turn their collective noses up to "the black guy" and vote for McCain.
3. We don’t know much about Obama but there is a slow trickle coming out right now.
a. Rev. Wright
b. William Aiers
c. Tony Resco
d. association with ACORN

These things can serve to make Obama look like a radical liberal with serious ethics issues.

4. Hillary has never had a likeability rating of 50%. You can’t get elected if more than half the people simply don’t like you.

5. McCain is the only Republican that "Changy Change Change" independents would be willing to vote for. They aint smart but they like McCain.

Now we get pretty far down the road.

But when it comes to the VP, it has more potential to hurt than help (see GHW Bush and Dan Quail and Walter Mondale and Geraldine Fararro.)

But a VP has to provide something.
Does McCain take the gov. of Florida? McCain cannot win the Whitehouse without Florida.
Does he find someone well liked in either Mich. or Penn? The dems cannot win without both of those states.

Does McCain have enough of a deficiency in the area of the economy that he needs a boost there?
In my opinion, I don’t think the VP candidate will have a big impact on the Republican candidate because John McCain is such a well known guy.
Ferd,
We will find out if his VP choice hurts him. Somehow, I feel that he is going to make a great choice that will help him.

Some key points I see with McCain:

McCain has been a valuable public scold on federal spending in general and pork projects in particular. He can most be trusted to expend the political capital needed to break the back of the Washington spending culture.

McCain is also a staunch free-trader. He has a record of standing his ground even when the prevailing political winds turn against him, as they are doing on free trade.

Despite his rocky relations with the right, McCain's record on their top priorities, cultural issues like abortion, is very conservative.

Voters loyal to President Bush see in McCain a man who stood firm on the Iraq war. Voters who dislike Bush see a man who criticized the president on the conduct of that war.

Conservatives remain unified on three key policy objectives: pro-growth tax policy and no-nonsense budgeting, judges who respect the constitution, and a resolve to defeat Islamic terrorists.

Overall, no matter what the media says - he is not following after Bush and defines himself. I'm sure the "maverick" Bob Dole meme will come into play on heavier levels. The difference is McCain is a very disciplined candidate in terms of delivering a message. Dole was more restraining.

Regardless of statistics, I think the American people want experience and strength especially with Iran looming. I get that from McCain. I don't see America getting that from Obama or Hillary, as we well know.

This is what I like about McCain. He speaks his mind in plain English. (lol)

On the issue of his stating we needed to stay in Iraq 100 more years, he said,
“We trust the American people to be able to figure this out. We don’t think the American people are stupid. Do you think they are stupid?”

And on berating Obama for not voting for Chief Justice Roberts, whom Hillary didn't vote for either.

"Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it, and they see it only in each other," McCain said.

That would be McCain. I can't help but like the man. lol

[TRFrance]

Ferd,
We will find out if his VP choice hurts him. Somehow, I feel that he is going to make a great choice that will help him.


I think Fla. governor Charlie Crist will be a good choice.
He's well regarded in the Republican party, he's relatively young (51), and he can help deliver the state of Fla to the party in November . <---This of course is critical, since Fl has so many electoral college votes.

[Pressing-On]

I think Fla. governor Charlie Crist will be a good choice.
He's well regarded in the Republican party, he's relatively young (51), and he can help deliver the state of Fla to the party in November . <---This of course is critical, since Fl has so many electoral college votes.

Good age and yes, I've heard that is a possibility, but not a lot of talk. I know he is popular and well received in Florida. I think they want to keep the campaign focused on the bruising of Hillary and Obama.

:toofunny

BTW, as far as age goes, McCain is in the same bracket as most of the Supreme Court Justices. So what's the big deal?

[tamor]

Good age and yes, I've heard that is a possibility, but not a lot of talk. I know he is popular and well received in Florida. I think they want to keep the campaign focused on the bruising of Hillary and Obama.

:toofunny

BTW, as far as age goes, McCain is in the same bracket as most of the Supreme Court Justices. So what's the big deal?

Hey, look at the age of the queen. And how old Prince Charles will be by the time he takes the throne!

[Pressing-On]

Hey, look at the age of the queen. And how old Prince Charles will be by the time he takes the throne!

Good points!!!! :thumbsup

[DividedThigh]

Indeed, many American voters are more informed and passionate about their burritos in the microwave, than about the real issues of our day.

The very fact that Obama is being treated like some kind of political Messiah is evidence of that.

amen to that bro, they just want mama to take care of them, lol, enough, grow up and take care of yourself, lol,dt

[Pressing-On]

amen to that bro, they just want mama to take care of them, lol, enough, grow up and take care of yourself, lol,dt

Preach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Baron1710]

Hey, look at the age of the queen. And how old Prince Charles will be by the time he takes the throne!

"No one should ever sit in this office over 70 years old, and that I know."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

hmmmm.

[Pressing-On]

"No one should ever sit in this office over 70 years old, and that I know."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

hmmmm.

That's his opinion. :toofunny He could be taking Viagra! You never know! :killinme

[tamor]

That's his opinion. :toofunny He could be taking Viagra! You never know! :killinme

:toofunny :bolt :toofunny :bolt

[Pressing-On]

:toofunny :bolt :toofunny :bolt

Wut? You think that might interfere with his heart?

:toofunny

[ChristopherHall]

First and foremost it is not anyone else’s responsibility to pay for my health care. I don't get to pick anybody's pocket to pay for things I need that is stealing. We have chosen the pay-as-you-go-plan. If we go to the doctor we pay.

Baron, my question was about taxation with health care as an example… not health care as a subject. But since you decided to comment on health care…I’ll be glad to engage the topic.

I have a newsflash for you…you’re already paying for freeloaders in the healthcare system, if you think you’re not your ignorant. You see we have nearly 50 million people without health insurance. These individuals go to emergency rooms and seek treatment when sick or injured. Then they can’t pay the bill. So hospitals and health care providers have to increase the cost of services to cover this loss. When the cost of health care increases to cover the loss from the uninsured YOUR premiums go up. As premiums go up MORE people can’t afford insurance and then they begin to add to the problem. Most of these aren’t welfare folks. Many own businesses and simply can’t afford health insurance. Some work full time jobs and can’t afford it. They’re far from free loading welfare bums. Most don’t know this. When all of this is considered, technically you’re already paying a hefty price for the uninsured! And you will pay MORE as more and more Americans opt out of health insurance because they can’t afford it. Consider that a third of this cost is administrative. A nationalized system would streamline administration thereby cutting nearly a third of the cost. Also in a nationalized insurance system the vast majority of people, except the elderly and needy, would be paying into the system. So essentially in a nationalized health insurance system the vast majority of Americans would be paying toward their health care…unlike right now where we’re fitting the bill for a vast number of the 50 MILLION who are uninsured.

Second, those numbers are whacky. When you put people on a medical plan where they have maximum that they pay, they will run to the doctor every time they have a sniffle. The cost of providing health care will sky rocket not decrease. Other than checkups or medical releases for sports my kids have not been to a doctor in 5 years. Check your local welfare recipient and see how often their kids go to the doctor. It’s the cost of illegals and people unwilling to pay clogging up our hospitals now that is causing so much of the problem with health care prices.

Once everyone is covered providers will be paid and premiums will drop. There will be a margin of increased health attentiveness, but that’s why it’s called “health care”. We as a society should encourage greater health awareness and care. Interestingly other countries have longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates, and overall better health because they are so aware of their health. In America we wait until we’re nearly immobilized before we see a doctor. By that time we have advanced conditions (diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, cancer, etc.) This means Americans are less likely to catch serious illness early. Also, since Americans wait until they are seriously ill to seek care, it costs far more to treat their illness. We like to beat our chests and grandstand here in America. We brag about how we’ve had aches and pains and never needed to seek a doctor…but in a way that’s stupid. Why? Because many of us have health issues that are brewing and we’re totally ignorant of it and won’t know until it’s become an advanced condition.

Treating the lesser symptoms (like the “sniffles”) and catching an underlying health issue before it becomes an advanced condition is a lot less expensive than treating an advanced condition that was neglected on the grounds that it only exhibited lesser symptoms.

Socialized health care is fine if you need a band aid, but ask all those Canadians what they are going to do when they can't come over here and pay for a major surgery, because their system says, "ooops that’s all of those we are doing this year, sign up for your transplant next year maybe we can see you then." Think how sad all those Canadians will be when they don't have a free market system to fall back on. I guess our friends south of the border won't care because we already give them free health care, free market quality at the socialist price. What a deal.

Bro…I got friends and family in Canada. My wife and I also go to Canada every year. In fact you can talk to some Canadian brethren on this very forum in the Canadian section. Most Canadians don’t think highly of America’s health care system. But while most Canadians don’t think much of our system they’re honest about their system, admitting that there are some changes needed in their system. Consider this….less than 3,000 Canadians came to American seeking health services last year. Most were seeking elective procedures that their national system doesn’t cover and found good deals here. A very small minority came here because they were denied treatment or had to wait for care. Compare….less than 3,000 Canadians came to the US seeking assistance…50 MILLION Americans are uninsured…and an estimated 18,000 Americans died last year from treatable conditions because they didn’t have sufficient coverage for treatments. Also factor in that an estimated 25,000 bankruptcies filed every year are due to inability to pay medical bills. The ol’, “Canadians love American health care”, doesn’t hold any weight when the details are considered. If you don’t believe me…let’s go to the Canadian section of this forum and talk to some Canadian brethren about health care. ;) I’ll be interested to see if you do…because when invited to discuss this with ACTUAL Canadians most tuck tail and never show up to talk.

Here’s the thread… if you’re willing to show up…

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=444833#post444833

And that Ladies and Gentleman is why Obama and Hillary make John McCain the lesser of those evils.

Do you understand McCain’s proposal? McCain’s plan would strip businesses from receiving tax credits for providing health insurance and offer those credits to individual citizens. Businesses would then have no incentive to maintain coverage for employees. Most would terminate benefits and leave the employee on their own to buy health insurance. The tax credits would be enough to cover low cost plans for younger and healthier workers…but it wouldn’t be enough to cover the more expensive plans the sick and elderly would need. In fact it would only cause more Americans to opt out of having health insurance, yet these would still go to emergency rooms when sick or injured and find themselves unable to pay their bills…thereby driving YOUR premiums even higher. Of course while the numbers of the uninsured are rising and steadily inflating premiums…business and corporate interests would be free from having to shoulder the cost. McCain’s plan is a Darwinian response that results in the survival of the wealthy.

So again, back to the original question I asked…why would you oppose increasing your taxes to fund a program that would save you money?

[Baron1710]

That's his opinion. :toofunny He could be taking Viagra! You never know! :killinme

Yep, that's why his name was below the quote and not mine. I saw that the other day and was waiting for the right time to throw it out there.

[tamor]

Wut? You think that might interfere with his heart?

:toofunny

I ain't saying NUTHIN!! I got myself in trouble on the food thread, remember?? :toofunny

[Pressing-On]

Yep, that's why his name was below the quote and not mine. I saw that the other day and was waiting for the right time to throw it out there.

:toofunny

That's the fun of politics - waiting for the right moment.

[Pressing-On]

I ain't saying NUTHIN!! I got myself in trouble on the food thread, remember?? :toofunny

Yea, when H2H showed up, I left. :toofunny:toofunny

[tamor]

Yea, when H2H showed up, I left. :toofunny:toofunny

BBWWAAHAHAHAHA!!! CHICKEN!! :killinme :killinme :killinme

[Pressing-On]

BBWWAAHAHAHAHA!!! CHICKEN!! :killinme :killinme :killinme

Yep, is was the .jpg that sent me packing.

:toofunny:toofunny

[Baron1710]

So again, back to the original question I asked…why would you oppose increasing your taxes to fund a program that would save you money?

Um again, I don't buy health insurance, it wouldn't save me money. I guess at heart I am not a socialist. I believe in more of a Lockean view. If I work for it, its mine and I should get to keep it. I have read enough of your ideas on health care that I really don’t care to go through it again. Basically, you think the government can solve our problems, I think government is the problem. Government at its best is a necessary evil…hmmm where have I heard that before.

[ChristopherHall]

those in the middle disapprove because their attention span is more related to heating burritos in thier microwave than it is related to understanding the nuance of fighting a protracted war against a dangerous idology.


I've made some observations...it's more than just "those in the middle". ;)

[TRFrance]

Good age and yes, I've heard that is a possibility, but not a lot of talk. I know he is popular and well received in Florida. I think they want to keep the campaign focused on the bruising of Hillary and Obama.

:toofunny

BTW, as far as age goes, McCain is in the same bracket as most of the Supreme Court Justices. So what's the big deal?

i guess because Supreme Court justices don't work 12-16 hr days, 6-7 days a week like a president does.

[Pressing-On]

i guess because Supreme Court justices don't work 12-16 hr days, 6-7 days a week like a president does.
He's not too old!!!!!!!!!!!!! :toofunny

[ChristopherHall]

Um again, I don't buy health insurance, it wouldn't save me money. I guess at heart I am not a socialist. I believe in more of a Lockean view. If I work for it, its mine and I should get to keep it. I have read enough of your ideas on health care that I really don’t care to go through it again. Basically, you think the government can solve our problems, I think government is the problem. Government at its best is a necessary evil…hmmm where have I heard that before.

I think you’re not grasping what I’m saying. You and I are already being forced to pay for the uninsured if we want to insure our own families. And we’re being forced to pay way toooooo much. A nationalized health insurance system would insure that EVERYONE (accept the elderly and needy) would pay into a single system to cover their own health care costs. From my perspective…it’s you who is advocating a sort of “privatized socialism” where 50 MILLION can freeload and we pay for it. I say government should make all pay something toward their care. It’s theft to allow private interests to force me to pay someone else’s bill. What if a restaurant took your credit card after dinner and charged you for a sixth of all the patrons eating dinner that night? Wouldn’t you call the police (government) and insist that the pay their own checks?

Essentially that’s what this is about. A national health insurance system is a way to ensure that 50 MILLION uninsured Americans can pay their own checks at the doctor’s office.

Again I welcome you to the discussion on the Canadian thread which I posted a link to above.

[Baron1710]

BTW, as far as age goes, McCain is in the same bracket as most of the Supreme Court Justices. So what's the big deal?

Except the President doesn't have 8 other folks to help keep him in line and the SC can't declare war. No one would think of appointing a Justice to the bench that was already that age, the whole lifetime appointment thing. Now if Obama were to win and wanted to appoint an 88 year old friend for Justice Stevens then I say the Republicans should consent.

[DividedThigh]

:blissExcept the President doesn't have 8 other folks to help keep him in line and the SC can't declare war. No one would think of appointing a Justice to the bench that was already that age, the whole lifetime appointment thing. Now if Obama were to win and wanted to appoint an 88 year old friend for Justice Stevens then I say the Republicans should consent.

really, that would be funny, lol,dt

[Pressing-On]

Here is what McCain is proposing on the Healthcare issue for review.

(excerpt or article)

The plan boldly takes on key problems in how we deliver health care that have contributed to out-of-control cost escalation. According to a recent University of Minnesota study, health insurance premiums have increased over recent years ten times faster than personal incomes, and by 30 percent from 2001 to 2005.

The key salvo is aimed at the central pillar of our health care system -- tax-subsidized employer provided health care. About 70 percent of Americans get their health care where they work.

The McCain plan offers a $5,000 tax credit to families and $2,500 to individuals to purchase health care on their own. This would end the inherent inequity of some getting tax-free health care from their employers, but those on their own or working for small businesses having to purchase it with after tax dollars.

It levels the field and relocates the focus of health-care-purchase freedom and responsibility to where it should be -- on individuals.

McCain would further enhance competition and consumer power by ending the 50 separate state fiefdoms and allow the health care market to be open nationwide.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/StarParker/2008/05/05/mccain_is_right_on_health_care

[Pressing-On]

Except the President doesn't have 8 other folks to help keep him in line and the SC can't declare war. No one would think of appointing a Justice to the bench that was already that age, the whole lifetime appointment thing. Now if Obama were to win and wanted to appoint an 88 year old friend for Justice Stevens then I say the Republicans should consent.

LOL! I've never studied out the "lifetime appointments" of the Supreme Court. Why was that instituted? What is behind the thinking on that?

[DividedThigh]

if you feed him, he will not leave, lol,dt

[DividedThigh]

LOL! I've never studied out the "lifetime appointments" of the Supreme Court. Why was that instituted? What is behind the thinking on that?

origninally it was for continuity and consistency in law rulings, but with the libs we have now, yikes, dt

[TRFrance]

Here is what McCain is proposing on the Healthcare issue for review.

(excerpt or article)



Interesting.

Looks like we'll have a fundamentally different (better?) system regardless of who wins in November. I'm all for it. It cant be a lot worse than what we have now.

[Baron1710]

LOL! I've never studied out the "lifetime appointments" of the Supreme Court. Why was that instituted? What is behind the thinking on that?

The idea is that they can make judgments without having the political pressure of having to be reappointed. That because of this they can be more objective, because they are not seeking reelection or reappointed.

But that was a time when life expectancy was dramatically shorter, take a look at the length of time the early justices served.

[TRFrance]

LOL! I've never studied out the "lifetime appointments" of the Supreme Court. Why was that instituted? What is behind the thinking on that?
origninally it was for continuity and consistency in law rulings, but with the libs we have now, yikes, dt

I don't like the lifetime terms thing.
I think it should be no more than 12 years, maybe 15 max.
(without reappointments, so there's no pressure to vote a certain way to increase your chances of getting re-appointed)

Not that it'll ever change, but I think that would be a better system.

[Baron1710]

origninally it was for continuity and consistency in law rulings, but with the libs we have now, yikes, dt

actually the continuity and consistency was stare decisis

[ChristopherHall]

Here is what McCain is proposing on the Healthcare issue for review.

(excerpt or article)

e

Here’s an assessment of what McCain is proposing on the Health care issue for review:

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecid=900033&contentid=254627

PPI Health Care Wire:

[excerpt]

Sen. McCain: One Step Forward, One Step Back

Sen. John McCain (D-Ariz.) has recently refined his presidential campaign's health care proposal. In a major speech on health care, he reiterated his proposals for tax credits and insurance deregulation that would encourage people to purchase coverage on their own instead of relying on their employer. He also addressed one of the problems with the non-employer health insurance market for individuals: insurance companies routinely deny coverage to patients who have pre-existing medical conditions. Specifically, he proposed that the federal government work with states to develop a guaranteed access plan for those with pre-existing conditions.

A guaranteed access plan would work like a high-risk insurance pool does today. When an insurance company turns away people with pre-existing conditions, they can apply for coverage through a high-risk pool in several states. Such coverage, however, can cost 50 percent or more than a typical premium. For family coverage, the cost would be $16,000 or more. Although Sen. McCain's proposal would offset some of the additional costs for lower-income families, these costs would fall heavily on middle-class families.

Besides the high costs, another problem with high-risk pools is that they don't always allow patients to keep their own doctor. If a patient's doctor leaves the network for a high-risk insurance plan, that patient has no choice but to stay in the high-risk pool and find a new doctor. Patients with pre-existing conditions would also lose their choice of health care plans because once they get a serious disease, no other insurance plan would have to provide them coverage under the McCain proposal.

The lack of choice for patients in high-risk pools also undermines competition to lower costs. Patients with pre-existing conditions naturally have higher costs and therefore offer a huge potential for providing streamlined care. Without competitive pressures to develop new cost-saving techniques, a high-risk insurance pool plan will undoubtedly miss some important innovations.

A better alternative to McCain's proposal is more like what large employers and the federal government offer. Large employers typically don't worry about patients with pre-existing exclusions because they have a large enough pool of employees to spread out the costs of sick patients. The Federal Employee Health Benefits program also allows workers to pick their own health plan and keep their coverage and doctors if they change jobs with the federal government. This approach forms the basis of the Obama and Clinton health care plans.

In some states with very loose insurance regulation, a high-risk pool may make sense, but it would undermine progress in many other states like Massachusetts where they have already eliminated the need for high-risk pools. A one-size-fits-all federal solution to the complex problem of guaranteeing access to health care coverage is likely to fail. Instead, the federal government should craft a solution that reflects the variation in state's experiences and policies while setting a clear goal: access to coverage for everyone.

For more information:

"Straight Talk on Health System Reform," John McCain 2008:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm

"McCain's Health Care Proposal: Darwinian Redux,"
Health Policy Wire, Progressive Policy Institute, April 18, 2008:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111
&subsecID=900033&contentID=254621

A Performance-Based Approach to Universal Health Care,"
By David Kendall, Jeff Lemieux and S. Robert Levine, Progressive Policy Institute, November 15, 2002:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111
&subsecID=137&contentID=251284

[DividedThigh]

actually the continuity and consistency was stare decisis

really my lawyer friend, what does that translate as, lol

[Baron1710]

really my lawyer friend, what does that translate as, lol

Sorry that was in the news so much during the confirmation of John Roberts, I thought it had become common usage. It's the shortened form of a phrase which means to let the decision stand. They grill conservative justices on it because they want to make sure they will let the abortion decision stand. In the common law one case builds off of another and the idea is that you look back at previous decisions to determine how to rule so that the law remains the same.

[ChristopherHall]

I have an audio series titled, “May It Please the Court”, that has audio recordings of major Supreme Court sessions where they mentioned stare dicisis. It’s fascinating really. What really interested me is how Roe v. Wade was argued and how the court evaluated both sides. After hearing the audio recordings I had a better understanding of why the court ruled as it did. Sometimes we loose sight of the details in our heated debates on social issues.

[DividedThigh]

Sorry that was in the news so much during the confirmation of John Roberts, I thought it had become common usage. It's the shortened form of a phrase which means to let the decision stand. They grill conservative justices on it because they want to make sure they will let the abortion decision stand. In the common law one case builds off of another and the idea is that you look back at previous decisions to determine how to rule so that the law remains the same.

thanks bro, i read stuff all day , every day, didnt notice that, cool, dt

[TRFrance]

Sorry that was in the news so much during the confirmation of John Roberts, I thought it had become common usage. It's the shortened form of a phrase which means to let the decision stand. They grill conservative justices on it because they want to make sure they will let the abortion decision stand. In the common law one case builds off of another and the idea is that you look back at previous decisions to determine how to rule so that the law remains the same.

... which has the effect, if not intent, of making it harder to overturn bad law.

[Baron1710]

I have an audio series titled, “May It Please the Court”, that has audio recordings of major Supreme Court sessions where they mentioned stare dicisis. It’s fascinating really. What really interested me is how Roe v. Wade was argued and how the court evaluated both sides. After hearing the audio recordings I had a better understanding of why the court ruled as it did. Sometimes we loose sight of the details in our heated debates on social issues.

A lot of the decisions have more to them than people realize. Roe v. Wade was just bad law, even Allan Dershowitz has said Roe was flawed. The court invented a right. I would love to see Roe overturned, but that would not end abortion in America, it would return to the states the right to regulate or eliminate it. Don't forget oral arguments are not the same as the courts decision.

[Baron1710]

... which has the effect, if not intent, of making it harder to overturn bad law.

Absolutely true. Michael Paulson (might have misspelled) wrote an article and the title was something like, Why Stare Decisis is Unconstitutional. He talks about the Justices obligation to uphold the constitution and if a law is unconstitutional it doesn't matter what a previous decision was. For all practical purposes though its just a guideline its not like they are thrown off the court for overruling a precedent.

[DividedThigh]

Absolutely true. Michael Paulson (might have misspelled) wrote an article and the title was something like, Why Stare Decisis is Unconstitutional. He talks about the Justices obligation to uphold the constitution and if a law is unconstitutional it doesn't matter what a previous decision was. For all practical purposes though its just a guideline its not like they are thrown off the court for overruling a precedent.

now you are talking, uphold the constitution, and all that i have read says that roe was bad law, let the states handle it, then it is closer to the people and it should be up to them anyway, dt

[clgustaveson]

Bush was the lesser of the two evils---- TWICE!

I am sick of picking the lesser of the two evils when my little brother could do a better job. Why do we have people like Newt sitting on their duffs letting big government Republicans ruin America? EW!

[TRFrance]

Bush was the lesser of the two evils---- TWICE!

I am sick of picking the lesser of the two evils when my little brother could do a better job. Why do we have people like Newt sitting on their duffs letting big government Republicans ruin America? EW!

Ironically the best and brightest don't want to run for office.

Someone like Thomas Sowell or Phyllis Schlafly could possible make great presidents, but they'll never run.

[clgustaveson]

Ironically the best and brightest don't want to run for office.

Someone like Thomas Sowell or Phyllis Schlafly could possible make great presidents, but they'll never run.

Possibly but they would never win....

In America today George Washington, Ronald Reagan, or Abe Lincoln would never be voted into office!

:amen <------- Americo

[TRFrance]

Possibly but they would never win....

In America today George Washington, Ronald Reagan, or Abe Lincoln would never be voted into office!


Indeed

24 years ago, Reagan won 49 of the 50 states.
That'll never,ever happen again.
Especially not by a Republican.

[clgustaveson]

Not with the socialist trend we face.

[ChristopherHall]

Elected officials are the hired hands of think tanks. The brightest don't run for office...they run think tanks. ;)

[clgustaveson]

The brightest are incomprehensable to the average individual today. They would never win. Many run but fail.

[TRFrance]

Elected officials are the hired hands of think tanks. The brightest don't run for office...they run think tanks. ;)

So which think tank is Barack Obama's boss?

[clgustaveson]

So which think tank is Barack Obama's boss?

All that "different" or not your normal democrat is garbage. Look at who endorses Obama. Aside from Evan Bay all the "real" democrats endorse him. Why then is he so different? If he is the rogue democrat like he claims why does he seem to reach the average democrat?

His think tanks are the same old Garbage we have always dealt with.

His loss in Indiana he blamed on the crossover voters encouraged by Limbaugh yet the week before he declared he had been pulling in the crossover!

He just uses words.... lots of them and like everyone else.

The one thing I do agree like McCain for is his reaching across. As much as I hate McCain & Finegold and McCain & Kennedy, he is the person that has the best record of reaching across the lines. He is a rogue republican and condemns the party. While he was not my first choice he will be my clear choice after reviewing the socialistic policies of the other two.

[clgustaveson]

All that "different" or not your normal democrat is garbage. Look at who endorses Obama. Aside from Evan Bay all the "real" democrats endorse him. Why then is he so different? If he is the rogue democrat like he claims why does he seem to reach the average democrat?

His think tanks are the same old Garbage we have always dealt with.

His loss in Indiana he blamed on the crossover voters encouraged by Limbaugh yet the week before he declared he had been pulling in the crossover!

He just uses words.... lots of them and like everyone else.

The one thing I do agree like McCain for is his reaching across. As much as I hate McCain & Finegold and McCain & Kennedy, he is the person that has the best record of reaching across the lines. He is a rogue republican and condemns the party. While he was not my first choice he will be my clear choice after reviewing the socialistic policies of the other two.

I guess what I was saying is McCain is the REAL Obama.

[Pressing-On]

I guess what I was saying is McCain is the REAL Obama.

I respectfully cannot agree with that. McCain is a patriot and Obama is not.

[clgustaveson]

I respectfully cannot agree with that. McCain is a patriot and Obama is not.

I am not at all sure if you understood what I was saying... its ok though I will rest my fingers on politics for the night... my views are available at http://www.cody-g.com <----- I look so much younger in that picture then I really am.

[Pressing-On]

I am not at all sure if you understood what I was saying... its ok though I will rest my fingers on politics for the night... my views are available at http://www.cody-g.com <----- I look so much younger in that picture then I really am.

Botox? J/K!!!! :toofunny

[clgustaveson]

I am Italian so I look young! Its a gift and a curse....

[Pressing-On]

I am Italian so I look young! Its a gift and a curse....
Your website won't download for me. Oops, there it went. It was just slow, for some reason.

[clgustaveson]

Your website won't download for me. Oops, there it went. It was just slow, for some reason.

I am updating my CGI pools! Sorry it should be up tomorrow if you bookmark it!

superbowlforums.com is a sole source of income for me so I need speed! :boxing

[Pressing-On]

I am updating my CGI pools! Sorry it should be up tomorrow if you bookmark it!

superbowlforums.com is a sole source of income for me so I need speed! :boxing

:toofunny

[clgustaveson]

How is that funny?

[Pressing-On]

How is that funny?

Well, I'm from Texas and when I think of "superbowl" I think of gambling. That's all.

[clgustaveson]

So everyone in Texas gambles on the Super Bowl?

That is so odd! You should move, gambling is relatively a bad concept!

[Pressing-On]

So everyone in Texas gambles on the Super Bowl?

That is so odd! You should move, gambling is relatively a bad concept!

LOL! I didn't say everyone gambles. I just know a lot of people that do. I'm not one of them, BTW. :toofunny

[clgustaveson]

LOL! I didn't say everyone gambles. I just know a lot of people that do. I'm not one of them, BTW. :toofunny


:largehalo look at you! It's a good thing you can afford gas!

[Pressing-On]

:largehalo look at you! It's a good thing you can afford gas!

LOL! $70 just to fill up the truck alone. We are at $3.50 per gallon right now. My husband only works about 5 miles from our home, so we don't really use that much gas.

[clgustaveson]

I think my CGi is done