As long as we keep changing the hope, we can hope the change. Hope. Changey. Hopey. Hope change.

you'll only find one candidate that agrees with your point of view 100%, and that's you. So go vote for yourself if you think you've got all the answers.

Politics, business, and public opinion is a tough balance and no one is gonna be perfect. The gov't has become such an overly complex mechanism that its tough for 'one man' to really make drastic change in a 4 year term with out full and sweeping support from absolutely everyone.

Somedays it feels easier just to vote in a total dictator, at least then we'd know exactly who to blame if we didn't like the results.

I am still very disappointed with both sides. I am basically a right-leaning libertarian but when the Republican Congress under Bush started spending like drunk sailors I became very disenchanted. I thought I could count on them to counterbalance the heavy- spending Democrats but man was I wrong. Both sides bite, big time. But there's no way for a third party to get a toe in because the two big ones have rigged everything. E36 M3.

wbjones wrote:

poopshovel wrote: I'm still on the fence regarding Iraq. While I don't think we should've been there in the first place, and I'm glad our men and women are coming home, I think we have effectively surrendered and accepted defeat, and I know multiple guys in the Army and Marines that are furious about it.

we had already set the ground work for this way back in April of '75 ...

The issue there goes back further than 75. My father was in Viet Nam from 67 to 69.. even back then, they were not allowed to "win". Everything was done with the intent on keeping the war going so that the arms suppliers could make more money.

And as for how our military is now.. the same people who were in charge then.. were in charge under Bush. Just look how far back Rumsfeld and Cheney go

dankspeed wrote: In reply to Curmudgeon: Fair enough. I didn't consider that when I posted. Still think its BS to assume all blacks voted for obama based on race. Make macain black and Obama 100% white and I'd imagine majority of blacks would still have voted Obama.

Sorry. I couldn't disagree more.

I live in a county that is 88% black. I've lived most of my life in areas that were predominantly black, including the town I was raised in (98%).

My mother and stepfather were a racially mixed couple, and we had a restaurant that catered to the black community. I have spent over 40 years living and working in minority neighborhoods, and have far more black friends than white ones.

There is an ENORMOUS imbalance. The African American community votes heavily based on skin color. It pretty established.

I think the whole race issue thing is moot in this case since the black community votes heavily Democrat anyway.

GlennS wrote: Healthcare reform

All things aside, healthcare didnt really reform, just who pays for it...you cant really believe anything has been reformed for the better do you?

93EXCivic wrote: I think the whole race issue thing is moot in this case since the black community votes heavily Democrat anyway.

I wonder if that makes the D's and the R's both ignore the black vote?

D's know they will vote for them instead of "Fat, old rich white guys" and the old guys they won't vote for R's.

I mean, the War on Poverty has certainly been a success.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

WilberM3 wrote: i'd like to see us actually TRY real free-market driven capitalism before we say it isnt working.

In a way, you have seen it. Capitalism grows and flourishes in a world where the only success is measured in wealth. To control it's destiny it acquires power. It buys favor of government. In inacts rules in it's own best interest and ignores problems and issues that do not help contribute to wealth. It fosters a culture measuring success only in terms of wealth as it seeks survival and more wealth. It does not feed the poor unless some economic driver makes it wise to feed them - like say an industrial revolution requires a healthy workforce. You don't invest in schools for everyone unless you are not able to find skills to match your needs. It is great while it is between extremes but pretty awful when it is at either end of the pendulum swing. I happened to be born in the sweet spot. It only gets worse for me unless I live long enough for it to swing back or something huge kicks it in the ass.

While capitalism can be all those things, it is also not restrained to any of them. You are describing the fallen nature of humanity and selfishness that exists in all economic systems and cultures. Those traits are most certainly not confined to capitalism.

Let's see... how does you description fit other options? Socialism, check. Fits pretty well. Totalitarianism, check. Dictatorship, check. Monarchy, check.

Your negative assessment is like an astrology reading. It pretty much fits whatever you want it to.

I'd rather focus on the positive things about capitalism and it's potential. Sure there's graft and corruption. Big deal. Join the human race. But there is also more opportunity for success than any other system around.

Who are the biggest humanitarians? Who are the benefactors? Who has the lowest poverty rates for it's citizens? Where are the highest standards of living? Where do the most philanthropists come from? What are the wealthiest citizenries in the world? Where is the best healthcare? Who has the greatest advancements in scientific discovery, or environmental responsibility, or medical research? Where do the fewest number of people die of hunger and disease?

Capitalist countries.

Complain all you want. I'll take it over the options any day.

But the United states is far behind many countries in several categories including infant mortality (34th) life expectancy (36th) to name a few. You would be shocked by some of the countries that are ahead of us...

fritzsch wrote: But the United states is far behind many countries in several categories including infant mortality (34th) life expectancy (36th) to name a few. You would be shocked by some of the countries that are ahead of us...

In a lot of regards, we, as a country, keep some bizarre company. Look at the list of other countries that still execute people for instance.

In reply to fritzsch:

there are many instances of statistics producable, usually by WHO or other socialism propoganda machine, that are often like a Microsoft Error message; Technically correct, but realistically meaningless.

For example, Unlike the US, there is no pay inequity between men and women..... in North Korea.

Everyone is paid $50 a month.

i take such things with a sense of proportionality...

fritzsch wrote: But the United states is far behind many countries in several categories including infant mortality (34th) life expectancy (36th) to name a few. You would be shocked by some of the countries that are ahead of us...

Just a point here, part of the reason we rank so low in infant mortality is because our standards for what's considered a viable infant are a good bit different than most other countries.

Some countries don't report births if they are under a certain weight or gestation period, I know Japan doesn't count it if the baby isn't breathing when it's born, and I'd have a better explanation, but I lost whatever it was the explained it and can't remember the damn name.

curtis73 wrote: Nobody here in the US really has a voice; voting, protesting, anything.

It's not that nobody has a voice. It's just that most of us don't have enough money to buy a voice.

fritzsch wrote: But the United states is far behind many countries in several categories including infant mortality (34th) life expectancy (36th) to name a few. You would be shocked by some of the countries that are ahead of us...

You should look up the dishonesty used in the infant mortality calculations.

fritzsch wrote: But the United states is far behind many countries in several categories including infant mortality (34th) life expectancy (36th) to name a few. You would be shocked by some of the countries that are ahead of us...

And how do the diets and obesity rates of those countries compare to the US?

Medicine can only take care of so much......

But why bring in perspective......

mad_machine wrote:

wbjones wrote:

poopshovel wrote: I'm still on the fence regarding Iraq. While I don't think we should've been there in the first place, and I'm glad our men and women are coming home, I think we have effectively surrendered and accepted defeat, and I know multiple guys in the Army and Marines that are furious about it.

we had already set the ground work for this way back in April of '75 ...

The issue there goes back further than 75. My father was in Viet Nam from 67 to 69.. even back then, they were not allowed to "win". Everything was done with the intent on keeping the war going so that the arms suppliers could make more money. And as for how our military is now.. the same people who were in charge then.. were in charge under Bush. Just look how far back Rumsfeld and Cheney go

'75 is when we pulled out .... i.e. gave up for real.... i.e. lost...

oldsaw wrote: Minorities tend to side with Democrats because they perceive Republicans as the "side" that will take away what they have been given.

I would point out that this includes things like emaciation, citizenship, the right to vote, legal protection from discrimination, access to medical care and the right to serve their country in the armed forces. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't be in great shape by no fault of their own if the government stayed out of their lives.

4cylndrfury wrote: Ust who pays for it...you cant really believe anything has been reformed for the better do you?

I certainly do. The "preexisting condition" nonsense has been improved for the better, no doubt. That's just off the top of my head. Personally, I'm in favor of coverage for everyone. I am not crazy about how we got there - I'd have preferred a single payer system. But since that was DOA, I'll take what we got over the status quo.

Yeah! It's awesome! Hey, where do I go to get my "Free healthcare" card, by the way?

Whenever you introduce a third party into the equation of "buyer and seller" the product/service becomes exponentially more expensive, which is why this "THUH SISS-TUHM ISS BROH-KUHN" debate started about healthcare. Sadly, people are so berkeleying stupid, they believe that while private insurance and medicare/medicaid suck ass, Obama and Pelosi are berkeleying geniuses, and will simply rob the evil 1% to pay for their stage 4 cancer treatment. Right. Sustainable, that's what that is.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I certainly do. The "preexisting condition" nonsense has been improved for the better, no doubt.

only it was a non- issue because you already had pre-existing condition coverage if you ever had to change insurance.

but for some reason, the democrats liked to leave that part really ambiguous because that wasn't good enough for them.

They want(ed) you to be able to not have insurance, and get sick, then immediately buy insurance and be covered. Thats a little different, and little more dumb.

I haven't stayed super current... but the talk of him being Black = getting the black vote was funny... I dug this little mp3 blurb from a radio show from the last election... it's a fun listen...

http://youtu.be/ky4ZY3Yn-os

poopshovel wrote: Yeah! It's awesome! Hey, where do I go to get my "Free healthcare" card, by the way?

Easy, just run down to your local death panel and ask for one! It's right by the office where they take away all the guns.

As I've lamented many times, we didn't get government run health care, as many of us wanted. I wish we had. What's ironic is, even though we didn't get it, we keep hearing about how bad it is that we got it.

And even if we had, no one was under any delusion that it was free. Who, I wonder, are you referencing when you suggest that? Did anyone say anything at all about free health care? Can you cite a single example of anyone saying that?

poopshovel wrote: Whenever you introduce a third party into the equation of "buyer and seller" the product/service becomes exponentially more expensive...

Absolutely. Right now, we have health care consumers, insurance companies and health care providers. Had we gone to a single payer system, we would have removed the third party. It is unfortunate that we ended up with a system that retains the third party, but at least they are subject to some regulation now. It's a step in the right direction.

madmallard wrote: only it was a non- issue because you already had pre-existing condition coverage if you ever had to change insurance.

That's fine if you have insurance. Millions of Americans do not.

madmallard wrote: They want(ed) you to be able to not have insurance, and get sick, then immediately buy insurance and be covered. Thats a little different, and little more dumb.

Who? I don't recall any plan that suggested that. What "they" wanted was universal coverage. There would (and will) be almost no one who isn't covered, so there will be no one to get sick and then go looking for coverage.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Ok, I will bite

So, go GET A JOB...so you either get insurance offered as a benefit, or you can now go get some on your own.

CRAZY ALERT

OR...

You dont get insurance, take your chances, and pay for doctors visits out of pocket, and bet on staying healthy enough not to need surgery. Take what you save by not paying for insurance, squirrel it away for when your need a spleenectomy or whatever. (I know it sounds idealistic but stay with me...)

We dont need insurance provider reform (though, allowing interstate commerce would do a world of good for equalizing through competition), we need totrt reform to help keep costs down. There was a time when you could afford a doctors appt out of pocket, and ins was only necessary to pay for the yucky stuff where the surgeon was elbow deep in your guts. Ironically, insurance (lawyer insurance fo doctors) is whats got insurance all jacked up.

To be fair, regardless of how you feel about the current health insurance setup..........we ALL PAY FOR EVERYONE as it is.

Unfortunately, we send the uninsured to the ER, which is dramatically more expensive than having real coverage.