2k8 election kumite

The CSU and UC have been quite successful. Where is Silicon Valley located? Might that location have something to do with a concentration of higher education made available to the general populace? Have these businesses generated revenue for the state? They did not fail. The state has just seen a much lower return as they've diminished their investment in the system.

Ahem. No, Clinton didn't put those laws into place. Congress did. He just signed them into law rather than vetoing them. The president has no power to fix laws. That is, again, the job of Congress or the Supreme Court (if they're unconstitutional).

The space program worked pretty well. Got us to the moon. Dont know if that one had a budget though.

Salanis, the CSU system is still extremely affordable to state residents even after the cutbacks. Atleast they were as of a year ago.

I am well aware. I graduated from CSUS a year and a half ago.

I say it has declined because it has almost been too successful. The state hasn't continued to invest money into expanding the system as interest in it has expanded. The result has been that we don't quite have the facilities in place that are necessary to meet demand.

It went from being incredibly successful to just, successful. That's still a decline.

ignorant wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: Health care is not going to get cheaper by nationalizing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service Dunno. I've got plenty of friends in the UK who are OK with the service they get from the NHS. And if you want better service, private insurance is available(and CHEAP!) to be used at private hospitals. I think a 31 y.o. guy I know pays $20 a month for private insurance in the UK, cause he likes the convenience. Forgot to mention. It's not perfect, and it was a laughing stock 20 years ago... but its not too bad at all now. I've been to NHS doctors in the UK to treat a sinus infection I got while travelling, medicene and all No cost to me.

Because of the giant mess that our current healthcare system has become, I am not entirely against a national healthcare plan. I am against one that takes our money in the form of taxes and gives it to insurance companies, who then try their damndest not to give it to us. Eliminate the insurance companies from the loop and you could get reasonably priced health care for the entire country.

The $20 a month private plan guy is paying for a very expensive plan in the form of taxes and then adding $20 a month to it. Thats not cheaper than what we currently have.

MrJoshua wrote:

ignorant wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: The $20 a month private plan guy is paying for a very expensive plan in the form of taxes and then adding $20 a month to it. Thats not cheaper than what we currently have.

Agreed. Its a luxury that isn't needed, but he's a single engineer and flush.

OK... I'd like to add another reason into the why I dislike Hillary Clinton.

Did she not agree to not use Florida and Michigan votes many months back? Now she wants them? How can anyone trust her? I can't..

Every vote needs to be counted.. More like, lets change some rules midstream. Is that the behavior a Pres should Have?

every vote that helps her should be counted. if they didn't help her, she'd be foaming at the mouth trying to keep them from being counted.

We currently have private healthcare. Our medical care is some of the most expensive in the world. How are we benefitting from a supposed free market economy in that? Also, healthcare to minorities and the poor is horrendous. To recap, we DO NOT have national healthcare and it is still incredibly expensive and ineffective for a majority of the population. How's that a good thing?

Democrats are for freedom.

Last I checked they did not: - Suspend Habeas Corpus- Initiate Civil Espionage- Imprison anyone indefinitely AND actively fight to keep them there- Defy Congressional Subpeonas - Invoke Executive privilege to stop Congressional investigations- Initiate a plan with KBR to build “interment camps” for “mass migration” or “natural disaster”. - Also, under a Republican controlled government the size of government, and government spending, has grown immensely more than under any Democrat in the last 20 yrs.

Recap:Expensive Healthcare, Loss of personal freedoms, Destruction of the economy, Larger government micro-managing the population as well as infringing in civil and personal rights.

All this under a Republican controlled government

Who's for freedom and prosperity again? I must've missed something. :twisted:

My next question is for the “dang gov't gets enough of my money!” guys. Why aren't you screaming to end the Iraq war? More of “your” money is being spent on that than most any other cost to the nation. We could have spent that on domestic needs such as infrastructure, health care, reducing the tax burden, etc.

yes but they lowered taxes so it cancels all of that out.

edit: oh, and something about family values

Xceler8x wrote: We currently have private healthcare. Our medical care is some of the most expensive in the world. How are we benefitting from a supposed free market economy in that? Also, healthcare to minorities and the poor is horrendous. To recap, we DO NOT have national healthcare and it is still incredibly expensive and ineffective for a majority of the population. How's that a good thing? Democrats are for freedom. Last I checked they did not: - Suspend Habeas Corpus- Initiate Civil Espionage- Imprison anyone indefinitely AND actively fight to keep them there- Defy Congressional Subpeonas - Invoke Executive privilege to stop Congressional investigations- Initiate a plan with KBR to build “interment camps” for “mass migration” or “natural disaster”. - Also, under a Republican controlled government the size of government, and government spending, has grown immensely more than under any Democrat in the last 20 yrs. Recap:Expensive Healthcare, Loss of personal freedoms, Destruction of the economy, Larger government micro-managing the population as well as infringing in civil and personal rights. All this under a Republican controlled government Who's for freedom and prosperity again? I must've missed something. :twisted: My next question is for the “dang gov't gets enough of my money!” guys. Why aren't you screaming to end the Iraq war? More of “your” money is being spent on that than most any other cost to the nation. We could have spent that on domestic needs such as infrastructure, health care, reducing the tax burden, etc.

Do not mistake the actions of W as the actions desired by true republicans in this country. That aside. * Expensive healthcare-side effect of excessive lawsuits. The results of a pro lawsuit policy pushed through years ago by male Clinton
Evil internment camps-FDR and internment camps ring a bell?
subpoenas?-Clinton defied impeachment. Defying subpoenas seems trivial after that. Hell Lincoln didnt just lock up the people, he locked up any politician who was going to oppose his plans. (I know the party affiliation doesnt fit, but he is remembered as a great man who did most of the things you oppose)
* Why am I not screaming? I Am-The government does get too much of my money. Iraq sucks, Bush sucks.

I want a smaller less financially intrusive government. The democrats done even pretend they want that. I will keep voting for the people who promise to reduce the size of my government. One of these days one of them I vote for will actually do it.

As liberal as I am, I agree that Mr. Bush does not represent the Republican cause. I also think that if there were any REAL Republicans left they would have pulled his card 4 years ago.

Politicians = Profiticians Black, White, Male, Female, Republican, Democrat or whatever.

The system is flawed nothing will change it short of revolution.

MrJoshua wrote: Do not mistake the actions of W as the actions desired by true republicans in this country. That aside.

No offense but I didn't hear the Republican voters being up in arms about any of these actions that W took. I agree that the Republican party, as it stands now, bears little to no resemblance to what it once was. You have yourselves to blame. Most R's, even the "take responsibilty fo' yo'self!" types, can't even take responsibility for the current state of the Republican party. Didn't they once stand for individual liberties, smaller government, a strong domestic policy, and a balanced budget? If R's still stand for that then why are they still backing W? He has worked towards the exact opposite of those goals.

* Expensive healthcare-side effect of excessive lawsuits. The results of a pro lawsuit policy pushed through years ago by male Clinton

Oh really? Just lawsuits are driving up healthcare costs? That's debatable. Have you investigated what profits the pharmaceutical industry is raking in? Have you also looked into how there are almost two lobbyists for the pharma industry for every one politician in DC?

* Evil internment camps-FDR and internment camps ring a bell?

"Typically thought of as a dark moment in our history. Let's reenact that under the Republican's watch. It's ok then." Is that your argument? Two wrongs make a right?

* subpoenas?-Clinton defied impeachment. Defying subpoenas seems trivial after that. Hell Lincoln didnt just lock up the people, he locked up any politician who was going to oppose his plans. (I know the party affiliation doesnt fit, but he is remembered as a great man who did most of the things you oppose)

Do you really have to reach back 8 years (And then over 100) to fuel your argument? Are you so blinded that you can't face the present and argue this situation on it's own merits? Clinton hasn't been in office for almost a decade. Lincoln has been dead for over 100 years.

* Why am I not screaming? I Am-The government does get too much of my money. Iraq sucks, Bush sucks.

We agree here! :grin:

I want a smaller less financially intrusive government. The democrats done even pretend they want that. I will keep voting for the people who promise to reduce the size of my government. One of these days one of them I vote for will actually do it.

Are these the reasons why you voted for W? I'm making an assumption here but it seems your pretty strongly in the Republican camp. I doubt you voted for Gore at least. :nice:

The good thing is we get to try again. I'd like to keep more of my own money too. That or at least have it spent in ways I agree with. Maybe you feel the same way. I'd ideally like both those options.

I want smaller gov't too. Let's start by ditching the worthless Dept of Homeland Defense. What a boondoggle Bush created there. Then we can disband the CIA. They're behind every crooked act the gov't has perpetrated in...oh...since their inception.

so..I agree with you on the major pts here. Less government. More money in my pocket. More freedom.

My thoughts are that Obama is the one to get us there. Bush No. 2 just wants to continue the status quo. More war, more cost, more government. Hillary isn't the answer. She's a Washington insider who's colder and more ruthless than Bill.

Obama is the only choice, out of the 3, who is talking about true change. As far as I'm concerned change is what we need. Now, get Ron Paul as his VP and we'll have something.

Ron Paul knows finance. He also has a reputation as a scrooge like skin-flint when it comes to public monies. I like that. I like that a LOT. He also is the most Republican like candidate currently running. Check out his platforms vs. the old school republican ideals. He matches them the most. Course, Fox news won't tell you that because they're "Fair and balanced".

I completely agree on the pharmaceuticals problems. But the solution isnt taking my money and giving them to anyone who wants them. I have one regular med, and have refused several other doctor recommended ones. My decision. Why should I have to pay for someone elses?

The internment camps argument is to point out that evil doesnt live soley in the republican party. There are/have been many bad decisions over the years by both parties, not just the republicans.

Subpoenas are currently used as a political tool. No one in politics gave a damn that Clinton screwed his intern in the whitehouse, it was all political manipulation to try to gain support for the republican side. Now a republican is in office, the favor is being repaid.

You bashed republicans based on their actions and through implication suggested democrats are better. I pointed our that democrats have done the same dumb things and you say -that was so long ago. Democrats arent better, they are all crooked. The trick is to vote for the crooked sob who is closer to supporting your political beliefs. Bush sucked horribly, Kerry sucked almost as bad a differed completely with me on political beliefs. Gore was about as opposite from me on political beliefs as any human can be so theirs no way I would vote for him. So yes, sadly Bush was at least closer to my political beliefs than anyone else.

I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries.

BTW-The little bit Obama has revealed is that his "Change" is all in a liberal democrat direction. Sadly not the direction im looking to change.

Xceler8x, we're all not that far off on a lot of things. Little Mac will win if Obama is the D nomination. I don't really know what "change" Obama is for, besides "change." He has a 100% anti-Second Amendment record. That's not too freedom loving to me and not the change I want. His web page(s) has something about hunting and "reasonable" which is BS lip service. Also in favor of killing babies at all costs and at any gestational age. Or maybe that's only if they are black, Planned Parenthood's initial mission.

I agree completely on the Lizard Queen. I think she was the muscle in the last Klinton administration and ordered the hits. They say she ran the "War Room." If she gets the D nomination, there is still a 60-70% chance she will be the next President, so remember to smile alot.

Yeah, Paul was a great choice and got a major hack job done on him. Remember who owns Fox. He just decided that being more centerish would attract more viewers, which it did.

Yes, the pharmaceutical industry is a large part of the problem. Wholesale drug costs are through the roof, even on generics that have been out for decades. That's just profiteering. It was done and allowed to happen by the feds so that Grandma will call her congress critter and demand that "something be done" because her heart meds cost her $300/month now. If there is no crisis, then there is no need for a national prescription drug entitlement. Crisis manufactured. Then throw in the lawyers, insurance companies and an attitude like "Well, we don't know what the new law means, so we're just going to go arrest some doctors and establish case law that way" which the government really did say, and you wind up with a medical crisis.

As for your "internment camps," sorry, BS. There are certain "end of the world as we know it" scenerios and thinking about them helps to deal with them, should the world end. What would happen if smallpox broke out from the reserves hidden in (fill in the name of the pavement challenged country)? Me, Tim and Margie would be fine because we were about the last to get an vaccine, but if you're younger than us, you're screwed. That's a real threat and that's why they think about those things. As long as we have an armed society, we will never have "internment camps" for the general population just because they don't vote the way of whoever is in power. Unfortunately, all 3 contenders today would love to disarm us, O>H>M, if that's even possible to scale.

I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in.

The Democrats and libs killed #1 and #3 with political correctness, handouts from the treasury for everyone and welfare.

The Republicans killed #2 in their last time around in Congress.

Little Mac also helped eliminate #1 on direction from Soros.

MrJoshua wrote: * subpoenas?-Clinton defied impeachment. Defying subpoenas seems trivial after that.

Forgive me if I'm correct. As I recall, Clinton got impeached. There was no defiance. They impeached him. Impeach != kicked out. Impeachment just means they get officially tried. Which he was.

I want a smaller less financially intrusive government. The democrats done even pretend they want that. I will keep voting for the people who promise to reduce the size of my government. One of these days one of them I vote for will actually do it.

Wow, that would be really nifty. Who's doing that? Not the Republicans. Sure, they talk about cutting taxes. But cutting taxes != cutting spending. I haven't heard any of them talk about actually cutting spending.

Last I heard anything about that... VP Al Gore was heading a committee that went through the congressional budget and cut a ton of active programs and committees that didn't do anything anymore but continued to get funding because there was no cut-off date (like, committees for reacting to Indian attacks).

On a more personal level I have met Bush and the Clintons in a personal setting. Not as presidents or running for president situation.

Bush had a head on his shoulders and after shaking hands with Hillary and Bill I literally had to go wash my hands. I wouldn't trust one word they ever said under any circumstances. They were the most self serving people I have ever met in my life.

Never met Obama or McCain, and probably never will meet Obama as he sinks into obscurity after the election is over, McCain will probably die before I can meet him.

As far as Clinton presidency being with a Republican controlled legislature, IIRC he had a Democratic controlled first term and a Republican one the second term because people were so outraged at some of the things they kept trying to do.

But who am I to listen to I happen to think that the 2 worst presidents in our history are Lincoln and Kennedy. If not for Lincoln being elected the Civil War probably would not have begun (or at least for some while) and NO he did not free the slaves, he only tried to free the ones in the South and the South only so that maybe they would help them win the war because at that time it didn't look so good for the North. And most of our present day welfare stuff was begun under Kennedy and his crew of "Bread & Circuses" promoters.

The Bread & Circus mentality is what killed the Roman Empire, it's working well on us as well.

Now I'll go back to lurking.

carguy123 wrote: The Bread & Circus mentality is what killed the Roman Empire, it's working well on us as well.

We're also suffering from a significant Hubris of the Dutch and British Empires. That is to say, we expanded enormously by building really good products (frequently with stolen resources, but anyway). Then, we got to be such an economic powerhouse, that we didn't feel we needed to build such great stuff anymore and the economy shifted to the credit industry, and slowly became indebted to up-and-coming countries that were building more stuff better.

Although, I guess that's a "bread and circus" mentality too. I can have what I want, and I can have it now, and I shouldn't have to really do anything for it.

On the flip side of your statement about Bush and the Clintons. I'm more comfortable with a person motivated by general greed and pride. The scary people are the ones who know "the right way" and will pursue it without reservation because "God is on their side". The most trustworthy person is the one who's loyalty is bought with cold hard cash.

Jensenman wrote: I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in.

You just got my vote. Where do I sign up to work on your campaign?

billy3esq wrote:

Jensenman wrote: I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in.

You just got my vote. Where do I sign up to work on your campaign?

Jensenman, are you: * a natural-born citizen of the United States; * at least thirty-five years old; * have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

It would also help if you have a significant military record or have held major public office. Have you ever thought of running for Governor?

I agree with you there carguy123. It is not popular to critisize Lincoln or Kennedy. The people of Illinois sent Lincoln to the senate to get him out of the state, much like how Arkansas finally got rid of the Clintons. Kennedy almost got us nuked by the Russians, as in Thank God there were some cool heads on the Russian nuclear subs. I knew a Cuban ex-pat that was on a CIA gunboat. He told me Kennedy was drunk at a party when he canceled the Bay of Pigs after the Cubans were already on the beach. He was not a Kennedy fan either.

billy3esq wrote:

Jensenman wrote: I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in.

You just got my vote. Where do I sign up to work on your campaign?

+1

Joshua, sorry to imply Demo's are blameless. Hell, all politicians are crooked like country roads. To be that ambitious is some kind of personality flaw. Along the lines of anyone who wants the office are the type who shouldn't have it.

MrJoshua wrote: BTW-The little bit Obama has revealed is that his "Change" is all in a liberal democrat direction. Sadly not the direction im looking to change.

The pendulum hasn't swung far enough to the right for you yet?!?! :omg: