[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Look into how much health care costs individual Canadians annually, it's about what many Americans pay in a month or two!

I hope you haven't forgotten the 10% difference in tax rate and the fact that too often issues such as dental and optometry are left uncovered in Canadian healthcare. Those are often paid out-of-pocket. I've found those who tout the Canadian system often forget that just because money is coming directly out of your check in the form of tax for healthcare, it doesn't exist as a healthcare expense and things like dental care and vision care are marginalized.

Costs are flat out out-of-control here, and the reason why may be legitimately labeled a market failure. Why do you believe that the market will protect the interests of the citizens of this country? If your answer is heavy regulation, if we are going to regulate we also need oversight. At a certain point, wouldn't it be cheaper and more sensible to get rid of this administrative overhead, and simply expand upon Medicaid/Medicare? That's basically what Canada's system is - doctors are private entities, they bill Medicare (the name of Canada's system).

I'm not saying that we should model our system after Canada's, just using it is a frame of reference...

I don't think we should use Canada's healthcare as a frame of reference for anything other than something we'd rather avoid.

I'm a Republican and will not be voting for Obama based on very basic differences in policy ideals. As it stands now, I may not be voting this time around at all. Any Republican who votes for Obama should ask themselves why they are a Republican. This is not a knock on Obama. We all have differences in ideals.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes. Otherwise it's an infringement.

The second was designed to protect the people from the government. If the government has army dudes toting M-16s and the people have catapults, then it's an unfair fight.

Okay, so what about nuclear weapons? Should I have the right to have them?

[besson3c]

ebuddy: the costs for Canadian healthcare I was alluding to were based on how much Canadians pay in tax. How else would they pay for their healthcare? Yes this excludes dentistry and optometry, but the *huge* differences in costs cannot even being to be accounted for even with your most liberal estimates of dentistry and optometry costs.

[besson3c]

For those saying that they don't like the candidates this time around, did you like them during the 2004 election?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by subego 

She also promised him she wouldn't run for state senate if she lost the US bid, and Obama made clear to her before he ran that once he announced he was running (which he had at that point) that it would be very difficult to back down.

It's never hard to drop out of a race and run again another season. You thank your supporters privately, you call a press conference, thank them publicly, and then, if you're gracious, you congratulate the person for whom you're stepping aside.

You have to make a decision about who you're willing to offend by not stepping down. Obama made his, putting his thumb in the eye of Walker, her supporters (whose support he would have needed had he not had her disqualified) and party leaders who do have the ability to run someone against a candidate they don't like (provided dates for filing haven't passed, here they had) have the ability to withhold their endorsement, rolodex, so on.

Some?

She needed 757 signatures to get on the ballot. She submitted 1,580.

That means more than half of them were fake.

Chicago business as usual, that some were fake. Actually, fake signatures happen everywhere, as a result of the way signatures are gathered.

You always submit more signatures than you need in case some are faked. The candidate isn't the one gathering this signatures alone, volunteers are out gathering. The questions asked when getting the petition signed are, "Are you registered to vote? If not, can I register you right now? (presents voter reg form.) Would you sign my petition to keep CANDIDATE on the ballot?" And people sign false names. Or people sign without being registered to vote and don't take the opportunity to register. No one asks for ID when getting the petition signed, because there's a limit to how much you can bother a person and get them to comply with your need for a signature.

Petitions are then checked by volunteers against the registered voters, so that the campaign knows how many signatures they have that will count. Then the signatures are presented to the Board of Elections to be validated.

That Obama was able to go and have his aides check and challenge more than half of her signatures suggests either her campaign did an impressively lousy job of checking their own signatures, or that Obama's campaign committed some fraud.

Think about voter fraud for a moment - it's not about stuffing the ballot box (unless the box is an e-voting one) it's about how you count the ballots. Or in this case, signatures.

Did you read past the sensationalist opening paragraph of that Tribune article? The Tribune is a total rag.

So, you prefer the sun-times?

Why should Obama have given her, or anyone else in that election, a pass?

He made his choice, and it was a calculated one to get rid of anyone else on the ballot without a vote. The vote was held, as far as he was concerned, as a formality.

I grant you, it was hubris on Palmer's to think that the seat belonged to her regardless of signatures or that her signatures were valid and couldn't be invalidated, and to think that Obama was so green as to not know how to count signatures to invalidate her.

Palmer was no angel either, she was a Chicago politician, too.

But it makes my point, which was, Obama's willing to be a dirty politician. He is not this honest, open character that he portrays.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: the costs for Canadian healthcare I was alluding to were based on how much Canadians pay in tax. How else would they pay for their healthcare? Yes this excludes dentistry and optometry, but the *huge* differences in costs cannot even being to be accounted for even with your most liberal estimates of dentistry and optometry costs.

The *huge* savings in costs even using your most liberally-inflated estimates of US monthly premiums do not account for the difference in tax rate.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: I'm talking raw cost, actual dollars and cents costs - however paid for. I'm not talking percentage of tax, or percentage of anything, but the actual total amount of money that is spent... This obviously includes tax. Capiche?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, so what about nuclear weapons? Should I have the right to have them?

If you can afford them.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

One day my older brother was bitching about Reagan. I asked him did he vote in the last Presidential election. He said no. I told him he had no right to complain about who was in office if he did not vote. He agreed and has voted ever since

I'm pretty sick of hearing that bullshit response. If there is no candidate that I want to see elected, then there is zero utility in me voting. Yes, I could write someone in, but that's pointless. In '04 I honestly could not see that either Bush or Kerry would necessary be better than the other, and I didn't particularly want either of them to be president. The Libertarian party also failed to field a candidate that I wanted to see in office. There was one candidate from each of the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian parties that I would gladly have voted for at that point: Howard Dean, John McCain, and Gary Nolan. What choices was I presented with? John Kerry, George Bush, and Michael Badnarik, none of whom I as willing to support. So what was I supposed to do?

In this next election, if it comes down to Clinton vs. Huckabee, I'm not sure that I could bring myself to support either of them. In a Clinton vs. Romney match I might be able to bring myself to vote for Romney, but I still shudder at the thought. So far I'm not too impressed with the potential candidates for the Libertarian party either (though I'm not necessarily ruling them out). I would be willing to vote for: Barack Obama, Ron Paul, John McCain. I might consider voting for Romney, and I might consider voting for Edwards (but only if the Republican candidate is Huckabee or Giluiani).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I'm pretty sick of hearing that bullshit response. If there is no candidate that I want to see elected, then there is zero utility in me voting.

I agree with that. The "right" to whine is not "earned" by voting for people you don't want to vote for or by participating in a system you don't endorse.

It's mind tricks like this - filtered down to the man on the street - which the bazzers in charge use to keep everyone locked into the current two party system.

[Chongo]

Vote Green. Vote Libertarian. Vote American Socialist. Just vote. Whining is a right earned by voting, BS or not, in this two faction one party system. You need to vote for your local, state, congressional, and senate candidates as well.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Whining is a right earned by voting

No. Whining is a "right" earned by being born under the First.

[Big Mac]

The only Democrats I would ever have considered voting for were JFK and RFK. And despite what the Kennedys have been saying, Obama is no JFK.

[MacosNerd]

The cost of the mandatory healthcare here in Massachusetts is quite expensive. for some folks its > 400 dollars a month. While the plan has credits and offsets for the folks who are under the poverty line there's less credits for the working class. Basically people now need to make some hard decisions, to come up with the monthly premium.

Also some people who had healthcare have to upgrade to a more expensive program because their current plan did not qualify - even though they had healthcare.

Then there's the cost of the plan that the government subsidizes, ,its already going to cost us taxpayers even more, like a quarter of a billion (or more). Where do you think they're going to get that money - from us.

So far I've not seen any government program that can be run cheaper then a private program here in the states.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. Whining is a "right" earned by being born under the First.

Yeah, I can see the bumper stickers now

DON'T BLAME ME. I DIDN'T VOTE!

[iLikebeer]

the least of poops is still poop. i'll vote for a presidential candidate when it matters who wins. Any bets on if that will be before the electoral college is abandoned?

I used to be a republican, but the only real powers POTI (POTUSs?) have is to start wars and veto bills (i don't care about the abortion issue, so appoint who you will). I've always been for 1 party in the legislature, the other in executive. We failed. On ths war part, I won't be voting R. 9ui11iani scares me though.

Edit: I won't be voting though, my state is red=my vote doesn't count.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Vote Green. Vote Libertarian. Vote American Socialist. Just vote. Whining is a right earned by voting, BS or not, in this two faction one party system. You need to vote for your local, state, congressional, and senate candidates as well.

Sorry, that's just a load of crap. Or do people who live in dictatorships not have the right to whine about it because they didn't vote?

And I do vote for my local, state, congressional, and senate candidates. But in any given race I won't vote for a candidate that I don't support just to satisfy some ridiculous idea of yours about what it means to live in a democracy. If there are no candidates that I can, in good conscience, support in a race then I won't vote in that race at all.

[Big Mac]

The Federal government charges an extraordinary amount for Medicare - it's the biggest single federal expenditure right now, yet it only covers a notable minority segment of the population (seniors). Medicare alone is sending the government hurtling toward bankruptcy. Is the average American really so gullible as to believe that extending Medicare type health entitlements to every American would produce anything other than the greatest budgetary disaster in American history?

[MacosNerd]

Here's a boston.com article that details that the fact that the government subsidy cost will reach 400 million. They had budgeted 165million for the cost. That's an increase of over a quarter of a billion dollars.

Boston.com

Again, I'll make my point and say that big government (big programs) are less efficient, less effective, more costly and do less then a private sector solution.

Back to the OP's question. I'm not sure who I want to vote for. I like Obama better then Clinton on the democrat side and I'm not sure who I'd vote for on the republican side. If Rudy was a viable candidate I'd vote for him, but I suspect he'll not even be running after today.

Seeing Romney in action here in Mass, by changing his stances to make him more appealing to the nation, I'm not going to vote for him. That leaves McCain or Obama. Not sure.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Yeah, I can see the bumper stickers now

Yeah, this is sooooo much better:

DON'T BLAME ME. I DIDN'T VOTE FOR BUSH!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The Federal government charges an extraordinary amount for Medicare - it's the biggest single federal expenditure right now, yet it only covers a notable minority segment of the population (seniors). Medicare alone is sending the government hurtling toward bankruptcy. Is the average American really so gullible as to believe that extending Medicare type health entitlements to every American would produce anything other than the greatest budgetary disaster in American history?

Right now these medicare payments are made in the context of the current costs of care.

By taking over ALL the payment the government will then either be forced to pay what the providers want to charge which would be a disaster…OR they will pay the providers whatever the GOVERNMENT decides they want to pay, which would also be a disaster.

This is the problem. Too many Americans seem to think that government-paid healthcare will be just like having the government pay for health insurance and that's it. It's a far more complicated and dangerous proposition than that.

It's a good thing these are just empty campaign promises that won't go anywhere for quite a long time.

[iLikebeer]

Honestly, with our system, I don't know why anyone votes unless they live in a battleground state that 'matters,' like Florida, Ohio, or Michigan. We're a republic that needs changes that can only be made by the people in power. Our 'greatest generation' screwed us over and with an unchangable 2 party system, Medicare and SS, they'll keep on screwing us till they die. The least they could do is get in the slow lane, but they just sit there with their left blinkers on. Fugg it, hence our great voter turnout.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Vote Green. Vote Libertarian. Vote American Socialist. Just vote. Whining is a right earned by voting, BS or not, in this two faction one party system. You need to vote for your local, state, congressional, and senate candidates as well.

Sorry but whining is a right without exception.

We have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean we MUST bear arms.

We have the right to practice any religion we want, but that doesn't mean we MUST practice a religion.

We have the right to free speech, which includes the right to be silent.

We have the right to vote, which includes the right to abstain.

Voting just to vote is pretty stupid. One should vote for who really think is a good candidate and if there are none that are good…what then? Draw lots? Eeny meeny miny mo? That's idiotic.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If you can afford them.

Ahhhhhh. So rich people who can afford weapons of mass destruction, should be able to buy them, in your argument?

(You know where I'm going with this... )

greg

[dennisuello]

He seems more genuine out of all of the candidates, on both sides. But, he can also be playing the role well. He doesn't have all the experience and exposure to public light, so he can be saying he's different from everybody else, while he's not. I do not agree with him on most issues and will not be voting for him, but from what I've seen I like him personality. Just not Hillary, for Pete's sake.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Ahhhhhh. So rich people who can afford weapons of mass destruction, should be able to buy them, in your argument?

Yep. In general, if you have the odd several billion lying around in cash and can actually afford them, then chances are you know enough about customer service and how to please people (because you need those qualities to make the money in the first place) to not nuke a big bunch of potential customers.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by dennisuello 

He seems more genuine out of all of the candidates

I don't think any candidate is genuine by any stretch of the word.

[TheWOAT]

Im more of a moderate, and I would vote for Obama or McCain... thats about it. Hillary and Romney annoy the hell out of me. Who let the dogs out? Really Mitt?

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Im more of a moderate, and I would vote for Obama or McCain... thats about it. Hillary and Romney annoy the hell out of me. Who let the dogs out? Really Mitt?

That's one of our problems, that's how we got Bush. Social skills do not a good president make, just an electable one. And the reverse is true, bad social skills shouldn't disqualify a person. Running for pres should disqualify a person, everything else is minor in comparison.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If there are no candidates that I can, in good conscience, support in a race then I won't vote in that race at all.

Then write in who you want to vote for. Or do the groundwork to put who you want to vote for on the ballot. I think Chongo is right, thought I don't think it's quite as simple as "just vote", more like, "be part of the entire election process, or don't whine so much if you haven't even tried."

People whine about the two party system, who gets elected, how all the choices suck... but then don't want to lift a finger themselves to change anything.

Sure, you have a right to whine if you didn't vote. But others have the right to tell you how silly that position is, because you have every freedom and opportunity to make your own choices known.


As for the subject, would I vote for Obama?

Hmm... difficult one. I would if the choice is against McCain, because I think McCain is actually more a liberal than Obama, and his polices would be worse for the country.

[ROFF]

Remember, if an American purchases a car manufactured in America by a company that supplies health care to its workers, that American is buying health care for someone else.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by ROFF 

Remember, if an American purchases a car manufactured in America by a company that supplies health care to its workers, that American is buying health care for someone else.

Yes, but there's a large difference between an individual choice and governmental force.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ROFF 

Remember, if an American purchases a car manufactured in America by a company that supplies health care to its workers, that American is buying health care for someone else.

Yes, willingly.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Then write in who you want to vote for. Or do the groundwork to put who you want to vote for on the ballot. I think Chongo is right, thought I don't think it's quite as simple as "just vote", more like, "be part of the entire election process, or don't whine so much if you haven't even tried."

People whine about the two party system, who gets elected, how all the choices suck... but then don't want to lift a finger themselves to change anything.

Sure, you have a right to whine if you didn't vote. But others have the right to tell you how silly that position is, because you have every freedom and opportunity to make your own choices known.

I agree with all that, but I have neither the time, the energy, the money, nor the inclination to try and do this for every single race that I can vote in. I take a bottom-up approach to politics: I try and change things for the better at the local level (I'm an advisor to the mayor of my city and am considering running for a local position), and try and do my best to spread those improvements around. On top of that I'm running a business and trying to pay my bills. Local government affects me the most directly so that's what I devote my limited resources to at the moment.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Then write in who you want to vote for. Or do the groundwork to put who you want to vote for on the ballot. I think Chongo is right, thought I don't think it's quite as simple as "just vote", more like, "be part of the entire election process, or don't whine so much if you haven't even tried."

People whine about the two party system, who gets elected, how all the choices suck... but then don't want to lift a finger themselves to change anything.

Sure, you have a right to whine if you didn't vote. But others have the right to tell you how silly that position is, because you have every freedom and opportunity to make your own choices known.


As for the subject, would I vote for Obama?

Hmm... difficult one. I would if the choice is against McCain, because I think McCain is actually more a liberal than Obama, and his polices would be worse for the country.

If that makes you feel better than believe that all you want. That's what the 2 parties have built up over the last several decades. You feel like you took part in an election and they stay in power.
There is no 'do something' like you say. Things will never change unless things get really bad. Maybe they will or won't in our lifetimes, maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. But we are an illusion of a democracy right now, we'll just have to see if the dems decide to swing the pendulum back the other way.

And don't throw the patriotic duty thing out there, revolution is impossible these days unless everyone agrees on it. 1 person in a nation of hundreds of millions can do no more than put out an idea in an age of instant communication. The mob agrees with you or doesn't. If voting makes you feel like you took part in somthing, more power to you.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Ahhhhhh. So rich people who can afford weapons of mass destruction, should be able to buy them, in your argument?

(You know where I'm going with this... )

greg

I don't know about should, but the constitution gives all people this right.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

The cost of the mandatory healthcare here in Massachusetts is quite expensive. for some folks its > 400 dollars a month. While the plan has credits and offsets for the folks who are under the poverty line there's less credits for the working class. Basically people now need to make some hard decisions, to come up with the monthly premium.

Also some people who had healthcare have to upgrade to a more expensive program because their current plan did not qualify - even though they had healthcare.

Then there's the cost of the plan that the government subsidizes, ,its already going to cost us taxpayers even more, like a quarter of a billion (or more). Where do you think they're going to get that money - from us.

So far I've not seen any government program that can be run cheaper then a private program here in the states.

That's because the Mass plan is wrong headed. You cannot solve the problem by ignoring important variables, which is what your state has done.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The Federal government charges an extraordinary amount for Medicare - it's the biggest single federal expenditure right now, yet it only covers a notable minority segment of the population (seniors). Medicare alone is sending the government hurtling toward bankruptcy. Is the average American really so gullible as to believe that extending Medicare type health entitlements to every American would produce anything other than the greatest budgetary disaster in American history?

I'm not. It needs to be fixed, but there are many variables to account for. The whole system is f-ed up pretty much, it probably would be best to just gut it, although Americans have difficulty with radical change.

You have to be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater though BigMac... You can't say that expanding Medicare/Medicaid would be bad since if the other variables were treated appropriately this might not be the case.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's because the Mass plan is wrong headed. You cannot solve the problem by ignoring important variables, which is what your state has done.

No argument there, but there's no guarantee a federal program would get it write. Given their track record, I think it would be reasonable to expect a federal universal healthcare program to be overly complex, overly expensive and bloated with bureaucracy.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Here's a boston.com article that details that the fact that the government subsidy cost will reach 400 million. They had budgeted 165million for the cost. That's an increase of over a quarter of a billion dollars.

Boston.com

Again, I'll make my point and say that big government (big programs) are less efficient, less effective, more costly and do less then a private sector solution.

Back to the OP's question. I'm not sure who I want to vote for. I like Obama better then Clinton on the democrat side and I'm not sure who I'd vote for on the republican side. If Rudy was a viable candidate I'd vote for him, but I suspect he'll not even be running after today.

Seeing Romney in action here in Mass, by changing his stances to make him more appealing to the nation, I'm not going to vote for him. That leaves McCain or Obama. Not sure.

In order to make your point you'd have to look at other countries and what they've done and extrapolate whether or not some of these same successes would or could succeed in America. You haven't made this argument yet.

[MacosNerd]

Your wrong there.
While there are programs in other countries that do work and my point wasn't implying that universal healthcare doesn't work period. I'm saying that it won't work here in the US, at least work better then a private sector plan. Just look at recent history of all the laws that have been passed by congress. They're either mandates on how to do something but not funding it, meaning the states had to pony up the cash, or over regulate, add government bloat.

Between pandering to lobbyist/PACs and special interests, the needs of the common man (and woman) are lost as these folks influence all bills to suit their needs and not the needs of the people.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

No argument there, but there's no guarantee a federal program would get it write. Given their track record, I think it would be reasonable to expect a federal universal healthcare program to be overly complex, overly expensive and bloated with bureaucracy.

There's no guarantee a federal program would get it right either...

The problem with this debate is that there is too much talking past each other, and little agreement about some of the very basic philosophies here - it's no wonder we all cannot agree on the best approach here as a nation.

At the core is the question of whether or not the government *should* be providing health care for people, and whether access to health care is a right as a citizen of this country. There are many other questions which stem from this, but it seems to me that we will be perpetually stuck without some of these basic foundational questions accounted for.

What I'm saying is that fundamentally it is far from given that government programs are more inefficient than private programs. For instance, the best (or one of the best) ambulance services in North America is based out of Toronto, which is funded by the local government. It might be unfathomable that *our* governments could run an effective and efficient program, but that speaks more to our government and the people running the show than it does to the basic premise of public funding.

The bottom line is that a program is only as good as its people implementing and overseeing it, its resources, and its support. Whether the people running a program are being paid the same amount by the government or from a corporation doesn't really matter a whole lot, they get their same paycheck and are expected to be accountable either way (hopefully).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Your wrong there.
While there are programs in other countries that do work and my point wasn't implying that universal healthcare doesn't work period. I'm saying that it won't work here in the US, at least work better then a private sector plan. Just look at recent history of all the laws that have been passed by congress. They're either mandates on how to do something but not funding it, meaning the states had to pony up the cash, or over regulate, add government bloat.

Between pandering to lobbyist/PACs and special interests, the needs of the common man (and woman) are lost as these folks influence all bills to suit their needs and not the needs of the people.

I was responding to what you had wrote:

Again, I'll make my point and say that big government (big programs) are less efficient, less effective, more costly and do less then a private sector solution.

It was unclear to me that you were only referring to the US, and at this point in our history. This seemed more like a generalization.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I agree with all that, but I have neither the time, the energy, the money, nor the inclination to try and do this for every single race that I can vote in. I take a bottom-up approach to politics: I try and change things for the better at the local level (I'm an advisor to the mayor of my city and am considering running for a local position), and try and do my best to spread those improvements around. On top of that I'm running a business and trying to pay my bills. Local government affects me the most directly so that's what I devote my limited resources to at the moment.

Sounds to me like you're more involved than 99.999% of the public. I agree with you 100% that the local affects most of us far more than the federal.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer 

If that makes you feel better than believe that all you want. That's what the 2 parties have built up over the last several decades. You feel like you took part in an election and they stay in power.
There is no 'do something' like you say. Things will never change unless things get really bad. Maybe they will or won't in our lifetimes, maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. But we are an illusion of a democracy right now, we'll just have to see if the dems decide to swing the pendulum back the other way.

And don't throw the patriotic duty thing out there, revolution is impossible these days unless everyone agrees on it. 1 person in a nation of hundreds of millions can do no more than put out an idea in an age of instant communication. The mob agrees with you or doesn't. If voting makes you feel like you took part in somthing, more power to you.

Sorry, but all of this comes off as conspiratorial nonsense. And it's been pointed out a million times that we don't have the type of democracy you imagined, because it was NEVER set up that way- it's a republic. Either take part in the process, or sulk in a bunker somewhere, make up conspiracies, and bitch about people in power that your complacency did nothing to affect. Either way, you get the government you asked for.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep. In general, if you have the odd several billion lying around in cash and can actually afford them, then chances are you know enough about customer service and how to please people (because you need those qualities to make the money in the first place) to not nuke a big bunch of potential customers.

Your assessment is totally out of wack.

1. You're assuming that someone with a lot of money had to work a certain way to get it? Where do the children of all the rich people in America come into this? Is Bill Gates' kid some left-wing anti-American nut who's going to get $22 billion in a few years when 'ol Bill kicks the bucket? Or does your reasoning include a "nuke screening test"; only those who promise not to shoot it at anyone gets their nuke? Maybe some "nuke safety" as well, like don't point it at anyone with the safety off?

2. What if those people aren't potential customers? What's Jobs gonna lose in Apple sales if he nukes Iran? North Dakota? **** it, it's worth it.

3. If you feel that anyone in America with enough money should be able to buy a nuke, do you also feel that anyone in Saudi Arabia with enough money should be able to buy a nuke? Iran? Indonesia? Australia? India? Russia? Why not – because they're Muslim? Not American? Not white? Not "democratic?" Not "Western?"

Nice can of worms though.

greg

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Sounds to me like you're more involved than 99.999% of the public. I agree with you 100% that the local affects most of us far more than the federal.

And yet I apparently still forfeited my right to voice my opinion when I refused to vote for people I didn't like...

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It was unclear to me that you were only referring to the US, and at this point in our history. This seemed more like a generalization.

I was referring to the US government, especially since this thread was about the US elections, and the US adopting a universal healthcare plan.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

So, you prefer the sun-times?

Yes... TO POOP ON.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

But it makes my point, which was, Obama's willing to be a dirty politician. He is not this honest, open character that he portrays.

Checking to see if your opponent is following the law is dirty?

The article is littered with comments by him about it, but he's not being open?

For you to attack someone's honesty (which you have at least twice), don't you need to provide an example of dishonesty? Show me the example from the articles. I read both several times and couldn't find it.

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "joo keep using those words, I don' thinka dey mean what you thinka dey mean."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And yet I apparently still forfeited my right to voice my opinion when I refused to vote for people I didn't like...

Well, as I said, I believe people have every right to voice an opinion about whatever. But surely you can see the conflict. If who is president doesn't matter all that much, then what's there to bitch about? On the other hand, if someone is worth bitching and moaning about constantly (and let's face it, there are those who either blame the president for everything bad, or give him credit for everything good) then it would seem it's worth being part of that process.

I think some people view not voting as sending some kind of message to corrupt and out of control politicians that they need to shape up. Or what? People won't vote? Boo hoo. I think they see it as "the more of you dimbulbs out there that don't know/care/give a crap about what we're doing, the better. The more power we can grab, the more self-serving corruption we can get up to." When the non-voting populace is a large part of contributing to that attitude, I don't see where they have all that much room to gripe about the results.