Mccain And-or Huckabeeeeeeeee

[TheScotsman]

I keep thinking I'm going to wake up and find out it was a nightmare... but alas, no such luck.
I can't imagine any of the 4 present contenders chaperoning a preschool field trip, much less the "free" world.

Romney wasn't the greatest, but he beats the circus act we are about to witness.

[ZenSilk]

I keep thinking I'm going to wake up and find out it was a nightmare... but alas, no such luck.
I can't imagine any of the 4 present contenders chaperoning a preschool field trip, much less the "free" world.

Romney wasn't the greatest, but he beats the circus act we are about to witness.

The only reason i didn't like Romney was because I knew his religion would be his prominent way of thinking, and in terms of the LDS church, there is a TON o stuff i don't agree with. I did like him because he wasn't on the verge of bringing in a Draft, but the whole draft issue is not significant anymore. His view on the wars was that we needed to stay there, because if we didn't there would be terrorist attacks left and right on American Soil.

Huckabee i hate for the same reason i dislike Romney, religion. Only Huckabee is worse ("Fixing" the Constitution so it's up to "God's" standards). I would never vote for anyone or support anyone who puts their religion first. Religion should always come last in my opinion.

Romney was the lesser of the two evils, i know alot of people think that, but i believe it's true. he was the happy medium between Mccain and Huck.

Mccain i need to study more, i can't say much about him.

[gaia.plateau]

Do you honestly believe they'll be worse than their immediate predecessor? Edited February 7, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Bulldog_916]

McCain could very well be. He would be the one to take the fight to Iran and prevent "radical Islamic extremism" from affecting the U.S. (like it hasn't already). He's a hawk and could make it seem like he's more responsible if he can get shit straight with Iraq and get the troops out. But he wont, he's talking about the 100 year war. I'm like "you better be in for one because you'll need 100 years to get this vote."

[gaia.plateau]

If that's the case, then he at least has half a brain. To avoid an all-out bloodbath and the rampant aggrandizement of IVOs in Iraq will take multilateral action for 60 or 70 years at the absolute minimum, and likely as many as 100.

[r1v3th3ad]

McCain could very well be. He would be the one to take the fight to Iran and prevent "radical Islamic extremism" from affecting the U.S. (like it hasn't already). He's a hawk and could make it seem like he's more responsible if he can get shit straight with Iraq and get the troops out. But he wont, he's talking about the 100 year war. I'm like "you better be in for one because you'll need 100 years to get this vote."

If he takes it to Iran, be ready to denounce your citizenship because the draft will return...

[AKammenzind]

Yeah... I'd rather have Romney than either of those two, not that I liked him either. I'm still voting for Ron Paul because when we see our country devour its own people as it falls to pieces I'll at least know that I voted the right way.

[boulderkid303]

True that! Go Obama!!!!!!!

McCain could very well be. He would be the one to take the fight to Iran and prevent "radical Islamic extremism" from affecting the U.S. (like it hasn't already). He's a hawk and could make it seem like he's more responsible if he can get shit straight with Iraq and get the troops out. But he wont, he's talking about the 100 year war. I'm like "you better be in for one because you'll need 100 years to get this vote."

If he takes it to Iran, be ready to denounce your citizenship because the draft will return...

[TheScotsman]

Do you honestly believe they'll be worse than their immediate predecessor?

I think McCain has the possibility of putting GW, and Bubba... combined, to shame. He is 100% Washington-insider, he knows how to get what he wants, and doesn't mind selling his mum us the river to get it.

We are going to get the paranoid war-loving dribble in buckets, and a shower of pro-life stupidity. Keep in mind, in all likelihood the next pres will appoint 3 chief justices. Long after the dipshittedness of his immediate presidency is over we have to wade through the results. At his age the VP could very well be replacing him before the end of the term. (I almost bet Romney at this point). He has the ability to beat either Obama, or that nurse-ratchet-looking-cromag-woman.

[Scheetz]

The choice is really quite simple.

Do you want to enter a full recession?


If you answer yes, then vote for any Dem.

If you said no, then you better pick a Rep.

Socialized medicine will bring this country to its knees.

[MechAnt]

Amen Scheetz

[Bulldog_916]

A republican got us into this crap in the first place by not allowing the federal government to oversee companies providing subprime mortgages to high risk lenders. Even the states couldnt oversee the companies providing the loans. So when people started to default on their loans, the feds didnt even NOTICE it until it was too late to turn it around. Economists were all but screaming it from the rafters and no one was listening.

New Orleans is still a wasteland and not getting any better any time soon under Republican rule. Under the republicans, it's said, and often true, that the rich get richer and the poor....DONT HAVE ANYWHERE TO FUCKING LIVE! Forget god damn health care, try getting everyone a roof and some food! This country is going down because of a republican and if another is elected, it will be the next fall of the Roman Empire. Try keeping a consumer economy going without any damn consumers. Good luck.

[TheScotsman]

The choice is really quite simple.

Do you want to enter a full recession?


If you answer yes, then vote for any Dem.

If you said no, then you better pick a Rep.

Socialized medicine will bring this country to its knees.

I would have to agree. But I don't think McCain's shamnesty is going to exactly be the ticket to vast prosperity either.

[TheScotsman]

A republican got us into this crap in the first place by not allowing the federal government to oversee companies providing subprime mortgages to high risk lenders. Even the states couldnt oversee the companies providing the loans. So when people started to default on their loans, the feds didnt even NOTICE it until it was too late to turn it around. Economists were all but screaming it from the rafters and no one was listening.

New Orleans is still a wasteland and not getting any better any time soon under Republican rule. Under the republicans, it's said, and often true, that the rich get richer and the poor....DONT HAVE ANYWHERE TO FUCKING LIVE! Forget god damn health care, try getting everyone a roof and some food! This country is going down because of a republican and if another is elected, it will be the next fall of the Roman Empire. Try keeping a consumer economy going without any damn consumers. Good luck.

New Orleans is a mess because they have a local gov't that brings new meaning to the word corrupt.

The Fed gov't has no legal right, nor duty to interfere with any form of commerce within a state. The problem with sub primes was that there were a collection of dumb people that were willing to sign their name to anything. They didn't care about cost, nor the result of buying something beyond their means, just that they could get the keys to the front door. They refinanced every time there were 2cents worth of equity (usually resulting from value escalation, and not paying the note down.) then they spent every penny of the money on some new chunk of rubbish that they couldn't afford. No one lied to them, they signed knowing all the possibilities, and well able to hear everyone with an ounce of wits say the bubble was going to pop.

Nothing is stupider than someone that thinks the gov't needs to save them from their own inability to control their own spending. Shite, maybe we should call it a disease, and put them all on the role for a disability.

Part of freedom is knowing what you can't afford. You are free to sign any contract you want, no one said it has to be fair. Part of being "sub prime" is the fact you couldn't control your spending/credit/bills properly in the past. They get the high rates because their credit sucked... and that was their doing, not the gov't, not the banks, and definitely not the tax payers. After the lenders got burned, they are cranking back the loans, and avoiding sub-prime customers. The market fixes itself. Only a fool would think the rest of the nation needs to pay off their house so they can max every credit card in sight. I paid all my loans off, they can too. It just takes discipline, and self control... not the gov't. I dare bet if the gov't saved their sorry dead-beat asses, they would turn right around, and do the same stupid crap again. Part of life, some have, some don't... but anyone can if they apply themselves.

I would MUCH rather see the feds take any bail-out of these wankers, and put it into decent college grants, and a loan program that actually works. Investing in the future of the nation, not the stupidity of greedy people buying beyond their means.

[gaia.plateau]

You do have a point there. History has shown that after Democratic administrations repeatedly plunge the US into a hopeless amount of debt, a Republican administration comes along and in one or two terms completely fixes it and turns it into a surplus. Except the opposite of that.

Speaking from my personal perception and significant experience in the study of economics, you're headed for a recession any way you slice it. You could argue that a Paul administration could curb it, but at enormous cost to the US and to the world for a very short term benefit.

Look at any case you like throughout history; when a wealthy country takes a nose dive, socializing healthcare has always turned it around 100%. Whenever a country has privatized their healthcare, it has collapsed. I'm happy to name dozens of examples from around the world, off the top of my head if anyone would like.

The choice is really quite simple.

Do you want to enter a full recession?


If you answer yes, then vote for any Dem.

If you said no, then you better pick a Rep.

Socialized medicine will bring this country to its knees.

Edited February 8, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[r1v3th3ad]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='Feb 8 2008, 01:18 AM' post='204842']

New Orleans is a mess because they have a local gov't that brings new meaning to the word corrupt.

[end/quote]

And where was Bush???? Eating cake...I love the art splash for it...
like 911, reading to kids, he finds out what happened, and keeps on reading

[Texico]

New Orleans is a mess because they have a local gov't that brings new meaning to the word corrupt.

And where was Bush???? Eating cake...I love the art splash for it...
like 911, reading to kids, he finds out what happened, and keeps on reading

I'm sorry but Bush can't be blamed for what happened with Katrina. The way it works in this country is that the City requests aid (if needed) from the state, and the state then requests aid (if needed) from the national government. There was no request for aid until after the storm hit.

You know what else comes with universal government controlled healthcare? The inability to maintain a potent world-wide military. If critics are right that in the event of Ron Paul pulling the US out of the UN, NATO, etc. the world would collapse as the current hegemon influenced peace fades away then the same would be true as we lose funding for our armed forces because our citizenry is fond of low taxes.

As much as the general populace would enjoy socialized healthcare, I think that they view it as a way for them to save money. I'm not 100% sure that every person in support of universal healthcare understands that it's inception would cause a significant increase in taxes and an equally impressive increase in government spending. I hate to admit it, but I lack faith in the intelligence of my fellow man. There is just no circumstance in which I can see everyone rejoicing in a government which now (after universal healthcare) spends twice as much (invented figure, I won't lie) as it previously did.

I don't know. Honestly, I'll live either way. I just have my preferences. Or maybe I'll get lucky and the world will end in 2012 like it's supposed to.

[gaia.plateau]

You know what else comes with universal government controlled healthcare? The inability to maintain a potent world-wide military.

I guess it depends on how you define potent... the British and Canadian militaries are better trained than the American one, they just aren't as large. We're performing potently enough in the mess you left behind in Afghanistan for the moment

We could always get into the debate of whether any country should have a world-wide military, but for now... In you perception, how exactly would universal healthcare negatively affect the ability of the US to maintain its military?

If critics are right that in the event of Ron Paul pulling the US out of the UN, NATO, etc. the world would collapse as the current hegemon influenced peace fades away then the same would be true as we lose funding for our armed forces because our citizenry is fond of low taxes.

Fortunately, it's almost impossible that he'll be elected and even then it would be almost impossible for him to make good on his promises. That being said, do you actually call this a peace? The international order would be thrown into chaos though, you're absolutely right about that... global nuclear apocalypse seems the most likely resolution.

As much as the general populace would enjoy socialized healthcare, I think that they view it as a way for them to save money. I'm not 100% sure that every person in support of universal healthcare understands that it's inception would cause a significant increase in taxes and an equally impressive increase in government spending.

Do you have a basis to think this, or is it more of a feeling? You could be right, I mean, I don't live in America... but it seems like pretty basic common sense that if the government is spending more, its people are paying more. What's left of my idealism in the redeemability of basic human nature inclines me to hope that your people would view it as a way to avoid losing their freedom to the shackles of financial debt, as a way to survive through illness and injury, and as a way to use their personal capital for other things, because they aren't paying it to a monolithic insurance corporation.

Honestly, no matter who is elected, I would be extremely surprised if the US ever implemented universal healthcare. Your presidency doesn't hold a sliver of political power compared to the average American Transnational corporation, and you can bet your ass the pharmaceutical companies and medical insurance companies won't be rolling over on universal healthcare.

I don't know. Honestly, I'll live either way. I just have my preferences. Or maybe I'll get lucky and the world will end in 2012 like it's supposed to.

Splitting hairs here the world isn't supposed to end in 2012, but rather the general interpretation is that all technology will collapse. Edited February 8, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Scheetz]

A republican got us into this crap in the first place by not allowing the federal government to oversee companies providing subprime mortgages to high risk lenders. Even the states couldnt oversee the companies providing the loans. So when people started to default on their loans, the feds didnt even NOTICE it until it was too late to turn it around. Economists were all but screaming it from the rafters and no one was listening.

New Orleans is still a wasteland and not getting any better any time soon under Republican rule. Under the republicans, it's said, and often true, that the rich get richer and the poor....DONT HAVE ANYWHERE TO FUCKING LIVE! Forget god damn health care, try getting everyone a roof and some food! This country is going down because of a republican and if another is elected, it will be the next fall of the Roman Empire. Try keeping a consumer economy going without any damn consumers. Good luck.

First, do you think Kerry would have not allowed subprime mortgages? I dont care who was in office, the fed will not stop that. From my understanding of what you want, you are looking for a Socialist government. We are built as a Democracy/Republic. This gives companies control of what they do not the Government control of what the private industry can do.

I would have to agree. But I don't think McCain's shamnesty is going to exactly be the ticket to vast prosperity either.

I agree with you. McCain is not my first choice. My first choice dropped out what seems like a long time ago.

And where was Bush???? Eating cake...I love the art splash for it...
like 911, reading to kids, he finds out what happened, and keeps on reading

You are aware NO asked for help 3 days after Katrina occured right? It is not Bush's fault that they offered help and were refused. But people seem to overlook that part.


As of right now a Republican will keep this country steady. You want to keep our country afloat right now, Socialized Medicine is not the answer. Our government owes enough money as it is. We do not have anywhere close to the resources to even offer socialized healthcare to 10% of our population. Anyone that wants to say our country is completely in the shitter right now, wait till January/February if a Demicrat wins. California is not a role model for politics.

[Scheetz]

Do you have a basis to think this, or is it more of a feeling? You could be right, I mean, I don't live in America... but it seems like pretty basic common sense that if the government is spending more, its people are paying more.

Honestly, no matter who is elected, I would be extremely surprised if the US ever implemented universal healthcare. Your presidency doesn't hold a sliver of political power compared to the average American Transnational corporation, and you can bet your ass the pharmaceutical companies and medical insurance companies won't be rolling over on universal healthcare.

For Socialized Healthcare, I believe it is San Fran that implemented it if you lived in the city. So we already have locations converting over.

The pathetic thing is there was a woman who called in on Glenn Beck. Stated she did not care if she had to pay 50% tax on her income for socialized medicine. This woman did not grasp the fact that if she is making $100,000 a year before taxes she will be coming home with less than $50,000. You try and live in the DC area with a $50k income and you will not be around for long. It is quite sad when people are willing to give up that much money for something they could pay far less for to have privately.

Now my biggest complaint:
A doctor makes $100,000+ easily. You go to socialized medicine they will be making $75,000 or less. So lets say that $500k neuro surgeon who you are going to see is now taking a pay cut down to $75k. Do you honestly think he will give you that A+ work he was before? Do you honestly think ANY doctor will give you quality care like they did before?

If you say Yes, you are an idiot. If you say "Well European doctors are socialized and they do quality work so ours will too." That would be FALSE. European doctors never made $500k and had to take a pay cut for a change in medicine. You want to take a chance with them so be it. Going to Cuba for surgery would offer you better results.

[Texico]

I guess it depends on how you define potent... the British and Canadian militaries are better trained than the American one, they just aren't as large. We're performing potently enough in the mess you left behind in Afghanistan for the moment

We could always get into the debate of whether any country should have a world-wide military, but for now... In you perception, how exactly would universal healthcare negatively affect the ability of the US to maintain its military?
.

I drew this conclusion along the lines that the people in this country want decreased government spending in order to lower the deficit. Many of these same people also want socialized healthcare. So, these people want the government to increase their spending for socialized healthcare without a large net increase in government spending as a whole. Something's gotta give. In my opinion it would end up being the military that would lose funding as the same people who are pro universal healthcare are anti military action. This would decrease our ability to "police the world" as effectively, or ineffectively to some, as we have been able to over the last century.

As much as the general populace would enjoy socialized healthcare, I think that they view it as a way for them to save money. I'm not 100% sure that every person in support of universal healthcare understands that it's inception would cause a significant increase in taxes and an equally impressive increase in government spending.

Do you have a basis to think this, or is it more of a feeling? You could be right, I mean, I don't live in America... but it seems like pretty basic common sense that if the government is spending more, its people are paying more. What's left of my idealism in the redeemability of basic human nature inclines me to hope that your people would view it as a way to avoid losing their freedom to the shackles of financial debt, as a way to survive through illness and injury, and as a way to use their personal capital for other things, because they aren't paying it to a monolithic insurance corporation.

Yes, this is just my feeling based on everything I've read, seen, and heard about or from the proletariat. I would like to think that I'm wrong, but I just don't have enough confidence in my fellow man to allow myself to think so.

I don't know. Honestly, I'll live either way. I just have my preferences. Or maybe I'll get lucky and the world will end in 2012 like it's supposed to.

Splitting hairs here the world isn't supposed to end in 2012, but rather the general interpretation is that all technology will collapse.

You stick to your interpretation, which is no less correct than any other. The Mayans claim that it will be the end of the age. Nostrodamus is in support of an apocalypse of some kind, and so is the Bible. Even that program which reads patterns in the internet says that shit's going down in 2012. Just let me cling to my hope that existence will end.

[gaia.plateau]

Now my biggest complaint:
A doctor makes $100,000+ easily. You go to socialized medicine they will be making $75,000 or less. So lets say that $500k neuro surgeon who you are going to see is now taking a pay cut down to $75k. Do you honestly think he will give you that A+ work he was before? Do you honestly think ANY doctor will give you quality care like they did before?

What are you basing this on? There has never been national universal healthcare in the US... so apart from inventing this figure, how can you imagine that it will be so? In Canada, doctors make between $90k-$300k, depending on specialization. A GP will start at 90k, that goes up to 100-110 after 4 years. Your average emergency room doctor makes about $130k and your average surgeon makes about $250k. There is no reason to believe healthcare quality will decrease because paychecks are coming from everyone in the country, instead of just the person who is sick.

I think the bottom line of privatized medicine is that it is an enormous obstacle to freedom... in a country with such an obsession with the word (I cite freedom fries), one imagines that you'd be concerned with its meaning. When people are working 100 hours a week pay for their kid's asthma, when they're living in constant fear of getting ill so they don't lose their business or home, they aren't free. The second-from-bottom line is that there is no objective way to differentiate between government-sponsored healthcare and government-sponsored military and etcetera. If it's necessary for the security of the nation, it should be socialized. Edited February 8, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[gaia.plateau]

I guess it depends on how you define potent... the British and Canadian militaries are better trained than the American one, they just aren't as large. We're performing potently enough in the mess you left behind in Afghanistan for the moment

We could always get into the debate of whether any country should have a world-wide military, but for now... In you perception, how exactly would universal healthcare negatively affect the ability of the US to maintain its military?
.

I drew this conclusion along the lines that the people in this country want decreased government spending in order to lower the deficit. Many of these same people also want socialized healthcare. So, these people want the government to increase their spending for socialized healthcare without a large net increase in government spending as a whole. Something's gotta give. In my opinion it would end up being the military that would lose funding as the same people who are pro universal healthcare are anti military action. This would decrease our ability to "police the world" as effectively, or ineffectively to some, as we have been able to over the last century.

So it's not that universal healthcare would deny your ability to police the world, but rather that policing the world denies your ability to have universal healthcare. The problem with the argument that military interventions would have to be reduced to save money, is that they've always been extremely profitable for you

You stick to your interpretation, which is no less correct than any other. The Mayans claim that it will be the end of the age. Nostrodamus is in support of an apocalypse of some kind, and so is the Bible. Even that program which reads patterns in the internet says that shit's going down in 2012. Just let me cling to my hope that existence will end.

It's not my interpretation, last year I spent 5 months living with Mayans, often in rural villages and mud huts, and I spoke with hundreds of them on this topic. Every single one, without exception, believes entirely that technology will collapse worldwide on December 21st, 2012. To this end even relatively wealthy Mayans have very few electrical objects, using open fires to cook and lanterns for light. Cars are common but not depended upon. So yeah, I'm conveying to you their interpretation, not mine. Edited February 8, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Texico]

So it's not that universal healthcare would deny your ability to police the world, but rather that policing the world denies your ability to have universal healthcare. The problem with the argument that military interventions would have to be reduced to save money, is that they've always been extremely profitable for you

Still not what I wrote, but I can understand how you'd misinterpret my meaning. The one thing you got right in reading my post was "it's not that universal healthcare would deny [us our] ability to police the world..." The fact comes that we would not be able to keep our large military AND have universal healthcare AND decrease government spending like most of the country wants. Unless we want to continue running up the current deficit then we would need to cut spending somewhere. With a democrat in the White House I could see said person pushing for defense budget cuts and decreasing the size of the military. Does that make sense?

You stick to your interpretation, which is no less correct than any other. The Mayans claim that it will be the end of the age. Nostrodamus is in support of an apocalypse of some kind, and so is the Bible. Even that program which reads patterns in the internet says that shit's going down in 2012. Just let me cling to my hope that existence will end.

It's not my interpretation, last year I spent 5 months living with Mayans, often in rural villages and mud huts, and I spoke with hundreds of them on this topic. Every single one, without exception, believes entirely that technology will collapse worldwide on December 21st, 2012. To this end even relatively wealthy Mayans have very few electrical objects, using open fires to cook and lanterns for light. Cars are common but not depended upon. So yeah, I'm conveying to you their interpretation, not mine.

I'll admit that I wasn't clear on this. I understand the Mayan prediction that this is the end of the age and a new age will begin. I was merely referencing the fact that there are many different predictions of the end of the world as we know it and that none is more correct than any other until one actually occurs. It's just my hope that existence will end instead of a new age beginning.

[gaia.plateau]

Still not what I wrote, but I can understand how you'd misinterpret my meaning. The one thing you got right in reading my post was "it's not that universal healthcare would deny [us our] ability to police the world..." The fact comes that we would not be able to keep our large military AND have universal healthcare AND decrease government spending like most of the country wants. Unless we want to continue running up the current deficit then we would need to cut spending somewhere. With a democrat in the White House I could see said person pushing for defense budget cuts and decreasing the size of the military. Does that make sense?

I wasn't interpreting what you wrote, I was responding to it but I guess I replied in an ambiguous way. What I meant was, if that = that (what you wrote), then this = this (my response).

I'll admit that I wasn't clear on this. I understand the Mayan prediction that this is the end of the age and a new age will begin. I was merely referencing the fact that there are many different predictions of the end of the world as we know it and that none is more correct than any other until one actually occurs. It's just my hope that existence will end instead of a new age beginning.

Well, it wasn't really a prophecy or a prediction... their calender works on a percentage system, and it simply restarts on that date. Predictions of doom came from among the masses.

I can understand your hope ~ existence won't end, but very possibly the human race will. It's my understanding that global warming is the planet's defense mechanism against us. I'm just glad that I live only a few hours away from the absolute safest place in the world in the event of either climate change or nuclear catastrophe Ima go live with the squirrels in the Athabasca wilderness. Edited February 8, 2008 by gaia.plateau