And how many countries did he unilaterally invade?
I have given nothing to convince you, so far, that I, McDushie, am anything more than a smooth-talking concern troll exponent of the same war- and fearmongering system
Wanting a small government for the sake of a small government is as asinine as wanting a big government for the sake of a big government. The question should be, what is the right amount of government for the issue. If that means no regulation, fine. If it means socialism, also fine.
and yes, I'm still pissed at him for breaking his promise over campaign financing.
Then you're pissed over nothing, as he never promised to take public financing. He promised he'd be willing to work on it with the Republican candidate - big difference. If you need to hold something against him, there's always his FISA flip flop.
It's written from an American perspective because the site is...gasp...in America. You don't find people going to times.co.uk and whine about how it focuses on the UK. Get over it.
Yes, that explains why Jesse Jackson won in 84, 88, and Alan Keyes rocked the black vote when he ran for office in 88, 92, 96, 00, 04 and 08.
Not.
So you're asking the wrong question. It's not "why do blacks vote for a black guy", but "what did Republicans do to turn off 96% of the black voting population", which is an easy question to answer. The modern conservative movement is based on two things: elitist opposition to the New Deal, and a backlash to the civil rights movement. Once Republicans stop hating on minorities - their xenophobia drove the receptive latino vote (socially conservative) to the Democrats - you wont see those high margins anymore.
During the primaries, Hillary had overwhelming support from the black community - blacks were actually among the last of the Democratic constituencies to come on board. That didn't change until Obama proved he could win.
Maybe you should try asking white Republicans why they haven't moved past Jim Crow.
With an Obama win my main concern is that the left leaning organizations that were so rabid and dogged in their pursuit of watching GW don't drop the ball and all of sudden become blind to an Obama administration.
And your basis for this Concern would be...? Remember that it was liberal Democrats, not libertarian leaning Republicans, who led the opposition to telecom immunity. And while there are some Obama fanboys, the base as a whole does not carry water for him, nor do liberal pundits like Olbermann and Maddow, as opposed to the GOP base and GOP pundits. Finally, remember that the media has a word that applies to Democrats but not to Republicans: accountability.
I don't agree with everything he stands for. Illegal immigration is a huge issue here. We don't really understand why politicians don't stand up for the American worker. Our jobs are being de-valued by workers who come here and will accept a non-living wage for most Americans. Our federal government hands out money hand over fist for welfare, health benefit and education to people that have no legal right to be here.
Rationalized racism. Other factors have done far, far, far, far more to depress American wages than illegal immigration. Offshoring, Wal-Mart, right to work laws (more appropriately, right to be expendable, right to work for less, or right to be fired laws), and the disappearance of pensions and high marginal tax rates. Low taxes on the rich costs the middle class money, because then the rich have an incentive to squeeze the workforce for every penny, whereas they didn't with 91% marginal tax rates.
But you don't see conservatives hopping up and down over those issues, ONLY illegal immigration. It's nothing more than the Southern Strategy, 2.0.
I just don't see where Obama will have any near the level of support in congress to pull off his plans. He just hasn't been a political animal long enough.
In my experience, the average libertarian seems at least one or two orders of magnitude more mature and tolerant to difference than the average supporter of big government.
Lunar landing conspiracy theorists throw out cute little theories that appeal to one's common sense, but don't stand up to two seconds of scrutiny. Like when they ask why you can't see stars on pictures from the moon since there is no atmosphere to distort their light. It's a neat, common sense idea - until it's pointed out that the film had to be taken at a high rate of speed so it wouldn't be overexposed, and you wouldn't see any stars with that film even if the picture was shot on the Dark side of the moon.
It's the same way with Libertarians. They throw out cute little theories which might work great if the Earth's population was a billion people and we all lived in Amish hamlets, but Libertarianism would be a disaster for civilization. The philosophy is great when government action needs to be prevented - Iraq war, warrantless wiretapping, ending the war on drugs - but it is a brick wall when government action needs to be taken, and we need it to act on health care, climate change, the food supply and many other issues.
In short, Libertarianism would be great at reversing the worst excesses of the Bush Administration - but it doesn't have any solutions how to repair the damage.
I would suggest McCain as a presidential candidate less beholden to special interest groups than Obama.
Depends, how many hallucinogenic drugs are you offering with your suggestion? Because it's going to take a lot to get anyone to buy this particular turd you are selling, as McCain's entire campaign is run by lobbyists - lobbyists that would continue to be employed by his administration.
In Obama's case, he's also done things to expedite illegal donations via the "individual donor" cover. Until recently, his campaign hasn't even done the most basic checks of credit card information. For a time, his campaign didn't check for proof of US citizenship for overseas donations. My take is that the campaign has received a huge sum of money. That strikes me as likely that Obama is beholden to a lot of parties as a result.
Wingnut propaganda. He's also returned checks sent from registered lobbyists. Spin it all you want, but the fact is that Obama's average donation is only $86, making it impossible to claim he's beholden to any interest group.
My question is, when was the last time that the government took over something from private industry... and improved the efficiency and quality of service?
Um, just about every other industrialized nation? Socialized medicine provides better care for less money than private insurance.
Why bother replying to my post if you don't even bother to read it? Oh wait, that's/. for ya..
Why bother replying to posts if you don't even bother to think? At all? Oh wait, that's wingnuts for ya..
And people also don't go see the doctor enough. I have a friend with a stubborn old uncle who farms. The guy had a hernia and just never went to see a doctor about it. When it would get overly painful, he'd hand upside down from a tree and let everything settle back into place. Then he had to get prostate surgery, and the doctor went ahead and fixed the hernia while he was in there. The old man said, "hell, I should have had that done 20 years ago..."
For every hypochondriac, there's a stubborn old goat who will refuse to get care until parts start falling off his body. Guess which one is more expensive in the long run?
I have a hard time believing that Obama's health care plan isn't anything short of a clever back door to single payer insurance.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
My question is, when was the last time that the government took over something from private industry... and improved the efficiency and quality of service?
Um, just about every other industrialized nation? Socialized medicine provides better care for less money than private insurance. And while you do pay for it in taxes, you actually get what you pay for: health care. As opposed to private insurance companies that will take your premiums and then pay people to find ways to deny you coverage.
The problem is, those 5% are those who invest in businesses. Those 5% are responsible for creating a disproportionate share of the jobs.
Wishful wingnut propaganda. Entrepreneurs and customers create jobs - not the rich. This is why most new jobs come from small businesses, not conglomerates with billionaire CEO's. And what exactly does Larry Ellison do for his company for $193 million that he wouldn't do for say, $2 million?
Hey, under Obama's plan I'd pay less taxes right now as well. I'm still against it, and for two very good reasons. First, I aspire to one day make enough to be punished by Obama's income redistribution plan.
And I'll cry you a river when you see a 3% marginal tax increase at $250,000, I really will. And it's important not to leave out the subtext here: it's not just "take money from those who make it and give it the lazy" it really is "take money from white people and give it to lazy minorities." There's a reason why the conservative movement is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and completely incapable of offering real solutions: it's based on a backlash to the civil rights movement, and elitists opposed to the New Deal.
Do you define forcibly taking from one person and giving to another perfectly alright so long as the first party has "more" than the second party? There's a homeless guy down the street who has nothing but the clothes on his back. I think I'll take 10% of your paycheck and give it to him. And there's an elderly couple in my neighborhood that wants better medical care. I think I'll take 10% more of your paycheck and give it to them. No, please, don't bother complaining. You've got "more" than they do, thus you need to give it up.
Straw man. Taxes and social spending aren't handouts, they're what makes a sizable middle class. Even if you are the most self-centered, selfish elitist on the planet, you want taxes and social spending because it means more educated workers and more customers with more money in their hands for whatever business you are in or are invested in. There's a reason why the rich do as well under Democratic presidents (and higher taxes) as they do under Republican presidents: Democrats grow the economy has a whole, as opposed to just funneling all it's benefits to the top. However, the middle class does twice as well under Democrats, and the poor are six times better off than they are under Republicans.
And THAT is precisely why Government involvement in healthcare is a supremely Bad Idea®.
Yes, because opposing better health care for less money makes so much sense.
ANY time someone else is paying your bills, you give that person (or Government) control of part of your life.
As oppose to the private insurance companies that take your premiums and have doctors that have never examined you decide what care you are eligible to receive? As opposed to socialized medicine, where you actually get what you pay for: health care.
You think it will stop with smokers? Think again. Next they'll go after fat people, and suddenly Government will be telling YOU (yes, just like "in Soviet Russia") what you're allowed to eat. Then they'll decide for you that some other aspect of your lifestyle isn't "healthy" and you'll be forced to ride a bike to work in the rain.
See: ultranovas comments on incentives. Join a gym and make at least 80 visits a year, receive a tax deduction.
Think long and hard before voting to take The Land of the Free down that road.
Think long and hard about why you're cutting of your nose to spite your face.
Have fun dying from heart disease you could have easily prevented.
And how about the people born with Leukemia?
You fail to understand freedom
Pot, kettle, black. With national health care, the state has an incentive to keep you healthy and paying taxes. Whereas private insurance companies will just take your premiums and deny you care.
What a genuinely dishonest mischaracterization of libertarianism.
No, it was a charitable one. Libertarianism = a once sized fits all cookie cutter philosophy, and one that doesn't make any damned sense, as it opposes good federal power along with the bad while letting businesses and states do whatever the hell they want. Your state beats confessions out of suspects, taps your phones without warrants, mandates school prayer in public schools - sad day for you my friend, as according to Libs the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, not the states.
No one is denied life saving health care in the US if they can't afford it - you are guaranteed health care for life, limb and eyesight.
Nonsense. Tell that to the family of the girl in California who died because her family's insurance company refused to pay for a liver transplant. Or the married father of three who died of leukemia because the insurance bureaucrats refused to pay for a bone marrow transplant, even though his brother was an excellent doner. People die in the United States all the time because they are denied medical care by Blue Cross, Cigna, et all.
No other nations have sent people to Mars, but plenty of other nations have national health care. Also, there are a lot of wingnuts who have stupid analogies.
Slashdot Mirror
Bill Clinton was no peacemaker either
And how many countries did he unilaterally invade?
I have given nothing to convince you, so far, that I, McDushie, am anything more than a smooth-talking concern troll exponent of the same war- and fearmongering system
Fixed that up a bit for you.
Wanting a small government for the sake of a small government is as asinine as wanting a big government for the sake of a big government. The question should be, what is the right amount of government for the issue. If that means no regulation, fine. If it means socialism, also fine.
Will your concern trolling stop when Obama takes office and your world doesn't end?
and yes, I'm still pissed at him for breaking his promise over campaign financing.
Then you're pissed over nothing, as he never promised to take public financing. He promised he'd be willing to work on it with the Republican candidate - big difference. If you need to hold something against him, there's always his FISA flip flop.
Again you think 100% of readers are from USA.
It's written from an American perspective because the site is...gasp...in America. You don't find people going to times.co.uk and whine about how it focuses on the UK. Get over it.
Yes, that explains why Jesse Jackson won in 84, 88, and Alan Keyes rocked the black vote when he ran for office in 88, 92, 96, 00, 04 and 08.
Not.
So you're asking the wrong question. It's not "why do blacks vote for a black guy", but "what did Republicans do to turn off 96% of the black voting population", which is an easy question to answer. The modern conservative movement is based on two things: elitist opposition to the New Deal, and a backlash to the civil rights movement. Once Republicans stop hating on minorities - their xenophobia drove the receptive latino vote (socially conservative) to the Democrats - you wont see those high margins anymore.
During the primaries, Hillary had overwhelming support from the black community - blacks were actually among the last of the Democratic constituencies to come on board. That didn't change until Obama proved he could win.
Maybe you should try asking white Republicans why they haven't moved past Jim Crow.
With an Obama win my main concern is that the left leaning organizations that were so rabid and dogged in their pursuit of watching GW don't drop the ball and all of sudden become blind to an Obama administration.
And your basis for this Concern would be...? Remember that it was liberal Democrats, not libertarian leaning Republicans, who led the opposition to telecom immunity. And while there are some Obama fanboys, the base as a whole does not carry water for him, nor do liberal pundits like Olbermann and Maddow, as opposed to the GOP base and GOP pundits. Finally, remember that the media has a word that applies to Democrats but not to Republicans: accountability.
I don't agree with everything he stands for. Illegal immigration is a huge issue here. We don't really understand why politicians don't stand up for the American worker. Our jobs are being de-valued by workers who come here and will accept a non-living wage for most Americans. Our federal government hands out money hand over fist for welfare, health benefit and education to people that have no legal right to be here.
Rationalized racism. Other factors have done far, far, far, far more to depress American wages than illegal immigration. Offshoring, Wal-Mart, right to work laws (more appropriately, right to be expendable, right to work for less, or right to be fired laws), and the disappearance of pensions and high marginal tax rates. Low taxes on the rich costs the middle class money, because then the rich have an incentive to squeeze the workforce for every penny, whereas they didn't with 91% marginal tax rates.
But you don't see conservatives hopping up and down over those issues, ONLY illegal immigration. It's nothing more than the Southern Strategy, 2.0.
I just don't see where Obama will have any near the level of support in congress to pull off his plans. He just hasn't been a political animal long enough.
Joe. Biden.
my Concern Trolling is off the charts on this one...
Fixed that for you.
In my experience, the average libertarian seems at least one or two orders of magnitude more mature and tolerant to difference than the average supporter of big government.
Lunar landing conspiracy theorists throw out cute little theories that appeal to one's common sense, but don't stand up to two seconds of scrutiny. Like when they ask why you can't see stars on pictures from the moon since there is no atmosphere to distort their light. It's a neat, common sense idea - until it's pointed out that the film had to be taken at a high rate of speed so it wouldn't be overexposed, and you wouldn't see any stars with that film even if the picture was shot on the Dark side of the moon.
It's the same way with Libertarians. They throw out cute little theories which might work great if the Earth's population was a billion people and we all lived in Amish hamlets, but Libertarianism would be a disaster for civilization. The philosophy is great when government action needs to be prevented - Iraq war, warrantless wiretapping, ending the war on drugs - but it is a brick wall when government action needs to be taken, and we need it to act on health care, climate change, the food supply and many other issues.
In short, Libertarianism would be great at reversing the worst excesses of the Bush Administration - but it doesn't have any solutions how to repair the damage.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich both received 0 money from lobbies.
The Obama campaign refuses money from lobbyists.
Obama is a tool just like McCain, Bush, Huckabee, Clinton, etc.
His average donation is $86. It's going to take a whole lot of spinning and a whole lot of acid to make the argument that he's beholden to anyone.
Don't fool yourself.
Good advice, maybe you should take it.
I would suggest McCain as a presidential candidate less beholden to special interest groups than Obama.
Depends, how many hallucinogenic drugs are you offering with your suggestion? Because it's going to take a lot to get anyone to buy this particular turd you are selling, as McCain's entire campaign is run by lobbyists - lobbyists that would continue to be employed by his administration.
In Obama's case, he's also done things to expedite illegal donations via the "individual donor" cover. Until recently, his campaign hasn't even done the most basic checks of credit card information. For a time, his campaign didn't check for proof of US citizenship for overseas donations. My take is that the campaign has received a huge sum of money. That strikes me as likely that Obama is beholden to a lot of parties as a result.
Wingnut propaganda. He's also returned checks sent from registered lobbyists. Spin it all you want, but the fact is that Obama's average donation is only $86, making it impossible to claim he's beholden to any interest group.
Why bother replying to my post if you don't even bother to read it? Oh wait, that's /. for ya..
Why bother replying to posts if you don't even bother to think? At all? Oh wait, that's wingnuts for ya..
People go to the doctor too much.
And people also don't go see the doctor enough. I have a friend with a stubborn old uncle who farms. The guy had a hernia and just never went to see a doctor about it. When it would get overly painful, he'd hand upside down from a tree and let everything settle back into place. Then he had to get prostate surgery, and the doctor went ahead and fixed the hernia while he was in there. The old man said, "hell, I should have had that done 20 years ago..."
For every hypochondriac, there's a stubborn old goat who will refuse to get care until parts start falling off his body. Guess which one is more expensive in the long run?
I have a hard time believing that Obama's health care plan isn't anything short of a clever back door to single payer insurance.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
My question is, when was the last time that the government took over something from private industry... and improved the efficiency and quality of service?
Um, just about every other industrialized nation? Socialized medicine provides better care for less money than private insurance. And while you do pay for it in taxes, you actually get what you pay for: health care. As opposed to private insurance companies that will take your premiums and then pay people to find ways to deny you coverage.
Some* bias? Just watch as I rationalize my lame double standards...
Fixed that up a bit for you.
But, seriously. "Suckled at the government teat"? Really?
Uh, yeah? To borrow Clinton's line about the economy: it's the hypocrisy, stupid.
Just don't deny that the man has earned his health care for 72 years.
And ordinary Americans would earn their health care just as much by paying taxes.
The problem is, those 5% are those who invest in businesses. Those 5% are responsible for creating a disproportionate share of the jobs.
Wishful wingnut propaganda. Entrepreneurs and customers create jobs - not the rich. This is why most new jobs come from small businesses, not conglomerates with billionaire CEO's. And what exactly does Larry Ellison do for his company for $193 million that he wouldn't do for say, $2 million?
Hey, under Obama's plan I'd pay less taxes right now as well. I'm still against it, and for two very good reasons. First, I aspire to one day make enough to be punished by Obama's income redistribution plan.
And I'll cry you a river when you see a 3% marginal tax increase at $250,000, I really will. And it's important not to leave out the subtext here: it's not just "take money from those who make it and give it the lazy" it really is "take money from white people and give it to lazy minorities." There's a reason why the conservative movement is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and completely incapable of offering real solutions: it's based on a backlash to the civil rights movement, and elitists opposed to the New Deal.
Do you define forcibly taking from one person and giving to another perfectly alright so long as the first party has "more" than the second party? There's a homeless guy down the street who has nothing but the clothes on his back. I think I'll take 10% of your paycheck and give it to him. And there's an elderly couple in my neighborhood that wants better medical care. I think I'll take 10% more of your paycheck and give it to them. No, please, don't bother complaining. You've got "more" than they do, thus you need to give it up.
Straw man. Taxes and social spending aren't handouts, they're what makes a sizable middle class. Even if you are the most self-centered, selfish elitist on the planet, you want taxes and social spending because it means more educated workers and more customers with more money in their hands for whatever business you are in or are invested in. There's a reason why the rich do as well under Democratic presidents (and higher taxes) as they do under Republican presidents: Democrats grow the economy has a whole, as opposed to just funneling all it's benefits to the top. However, the middle class does twice as well under Democrats, and the poor are six times better off than they are under Republicans.
And THAT is precisely why Government involvement in healthcare is a supremely Bad Idea®.
Yes, because opposing better health care for less money makes so much sense.
ANY time someone else is paying your bills, you give that person (or Government) control of part of your life.
As oppose to the private insurance companies that take your premiums and have doctors that have never examined you decide what care you are eligible to receive? As opposed to socialized medicine, where you actually get what you pay for: health care.
You think it will stop with smokers? Think again. Next they'll go after fat people, and suddenly Government will be telling YOU (yes, just like "in Soviet Russia") what you're allowed to eat. Then they'll decide for you that some other aspect of your lifestyle isn't "healthy" and you'll be forced to ride a bike to work in the rain.
See: ultranovas comments on incentives. Join a gym and make at least 80 visits a year, receive a tax deduction.
Think long and hard before voting to take The Land of the Free down that road.
Think long and hard about why you're cutting of your nose to spite your face.
Have fun dying from heart disease you could have easily prevented.
And how about the people born with Leukemia?
You fail to understand freedom
Pot, kettle, black. With national health care, the state has an incentive to keep you healthy and paying taxes. Whereas private insurance companies will just take your premiums and deny you care.
What a genuinely dishonest mischaracterization of libertarianism.
No, it was a charitable one. Libertarianism = a once sized fits all cookie cutter philosophy, and one that doesn't make any damned sense, as it opposes good federal power along with the bad while letting businesses and states do whatever the hell they want. Your state beats confessions out of suspects, taps your phones without warrants, mandates school prayer in public schools - sad day for you my friend, as according to Libs the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, not the states.
No one is denied life saving health care in the US if they can't afford it - you are guaranteed health care for life, limb and eyesight.
Nonsense. Tell that to the family of the girl in California who died because her family's insurance company refused to pay for a liver transplant. Or the married father of three who died of leukemia because the insurance bureaucrats refused to pay for a bone marrow transplant, even though his brother was an excellent doner. People die in the United States all the time because they are denied medical care by Blue Cross, Cigna, et all.
No other nations have sent people to Mars, but plenty of other nations have national health care. Also, there are a lot of wingnuts who have stupid analogies.