Obama Campaign Theatrics --- woman faints @ rallies a scam?

[uofom3]

Part of the problem with our society is that people are so inconsistent in their political beliefs.

The "conservative" Republicans want government out of business, but want to legislate everyone's individual morality. (Abortion, drugs, gay marriage). And they want us to give up our individual liberties to boot. (No warrant wiretaps, FBI to scour our emails, etc etc). And don't get me started on the "pro-lifers" who are for the death penalty.

The "liberal" Democrats want government out of people's personal lives, but want it to provide all of the social benefits. (Income security, healthcare, etc).

Our political parties are so inherently fucked up in this way it is a wonder we are not worse off.

The Republican primaries have been a great example of this. Look at the McCain-Huckabee contrast. Granted, McCain is not the most conservative guy in any respect, but he has never been a darling of the Bible thumping crowd. Those people will continue to throw their votes at Huckabee despite the fact that he cannot win the nomination and would have zero chance of winning the general election. In fact, in those circles, they are likely to sit this one out in the fall unless they have one of their American Taliban candidates down the ticket.

McCain has to either somehow tap into that base by picking a wingnut running mate, or has to hope that some big event happens that lets him exploit the fear of Americnas the way Rove/Bush did it in 2004.

Honestly, I think he is too principled to do either of those things. I'd really like to see someone come out of this who can unite the nation and undo the divisive politics that have really become dominant since 2000.

This thread is excellent.

I'll start with Dave.

- The most inconsistent people regarding beliefs is the democratic party - fringe left particularly. Moderate demo's, just like moderate repub's, are not nearly so inconsistant as the radicals. This is pretty obvious as the more extreme you are in an inter-related dynamic environment; the most open you are to contradiction and hypocracy when you start making concrete assertions.

- You're confusing conservatism with the religous right. It's a stereotype. Before I get that slung back at me, I've been very fair to the Dems and made a point of not making this adversarial. Things like abortion, drugs, gay marriage are things that primarily concern the major religious sectors. I could care less of homo's want to plug each other in the ass, and if you want to give them tax benefits as a "civil union" go for it. Just don't call it mariage because it isn't, and let them do what they want behind closed doors. The war on drugs is a war that won't be won. This truly is not the repubs or dems fault. To win the war on drugs, you have to get SERIOUS and by that I mean military tactics on people inside this country at a major level and getting serious about the business. Lib's don't want to hurt anyone with serious action, repubs can't agree with the libs on how to handle it. So, it's a cluster fuck and it will remain that way. I'm not talking about pot, nor am I in any way suggesting that drug use is acceptable (heavy drugs particularly).

- Regarding the "rights that are being taken away" - that's bull. Do you have something to hide? I could give a shit less what they look at of mine for national security purposes. To educate my self on word developments, I've cruised the internet to find a lot of information. I'm positive I've been to sites and used google search terms that have put me on a least once watch list. But if they want to come scan my computer, look at my porn, and steal my term papers - fine with me. I've got nothing to hide, and nothing but good intentions. They aren't trying to get me for pirated music, they are trying to see if i'm coooking up something much more serious. I have no problem with this sort of thing - and IMO you really only have a problem if you've got something to hide.

-I will post an entirely seperate post for pro-lifers on the death penalty- that's a hell of an interesting topic.

- do NOT associate the conservative party with the bible thumpers soley, PLEASE. They are just as nuts as the lunatic left. You are a self-proclaimed demo, but you're obviously not a fringe lune. I'm a conservative, but I'm not thumping my bible, screaming kill the fags beause they are evil and sinful. You know what I mean? It's an extreme example.

- I applaud the remainder of your post - I really appreciate your balanced approach to the discussion. It has been a great contribution.

[Hallen]

It shouldn't be political, it should just be not-allowed?
Come on. I have a hard time with this one (and I am quite conservative).

Think about it...

a: If you don't agree with abortion, keep the younguns out of the gene pool.

b: if a girl doesnt want a baby, how good of a mother do you think she will be? No life is better than a miserable life.

It is not like people use abortion as birth control...

I don't really want to go there.
a: is silly. Are you trying to say that if I don't agree with abortion, that I should lock my kids in a closet so they can't possibly ever have sex? That is obviously unrealistic and since it really only applies to female children, it becomes even more absurd.

b: adoption is a very real and very worthwhile choice. Also, you may not want a child, but once the inevitable happens, it is your responsibility to care for and love that child. Trust me when I tell you that if you are a good person with a sense of responsibility, you will do just that.

The decision comes down to if you believe that the instant an egg is fertilized, it is human and has a soul. That is something that is non-provable one way or the other. Either you believe it does have a soul and is therefore a living breathing human being and therefore to abort it is to commit murder. Or, you don't believe it is human until it is born... er or is it 6 months, or anytime after the first trimester or ... what. Anyway, somewhere in there it becomes human and should not be killed.

That is why I don't want it to be a political debate. There is no answer for this question. Only personal belief. If you push the government to make a decision on this kind of thing where there is no answer, don't be surprised if the decision that comes back is not what you wanted. If the government errs on the safe side, there will be no abortion. If they say it is allowable, you might not like the terms.

I guess it is cowardice on my part, but trying to determine if abortion is murder or not is something that I just can't answer. My preferred stance is that abortion should be avoided as much as possible and abstinence and prevention promoted as much as possible. But I am also unwilling to make that decision for someone else.

[Funkmasta]

Abortion should not be a political issue in my opinion, but that is a tough one. Personally, I am mostly opposed to it although there are cases where it is still justified. However, just like the liberals, there are fringes of the conservatives that are extreme. They are the ones that drive this abortion issue. I wish the republicans would just ignore it.

It shouldn't be political, it should just be not-allowed?
Come on. I have a hard time with this one (and I am quite conservative).

Think about it...

a: If you don't agree with abortion, keep the younguns out of the gene pool.

b: if a girl doesnt want a baby, how good of a mother do you think she will be? No life is better than a miserable life.

It is not like people use abortion as birth control...

[Hallen]

Part of the problem with our society is that people are so inconsistent in their political beliefs.

The "conservative" Republicans want government out of business, but want to legislate everyone's individual morality. (Abortion, drugs, gay marriage). And they want us to give up our individual liberties to boot. (No warrant wiretaps, FBI to scour our emails, etc etc). And don't get me started on the "pro-lifers" who are for the death penalty.

The "liberal" Democrats want government out of people's personal lives, but want it to provide all of the social benefits. (Income security, healthcare, etc).

Our political parties are so inherently fucked up in this way it is a wonder we are not worse off.

The Republican primaries have been a great example of this. Look at the McCain-Huckabee contrast. Granted, McCain is not the most conservative guy in any respect, but he has never been a darling of the Bible thumping crowd. Those people will continue to throw their votes at Huckabee despite the fact that he cannot win the nomination and would have zero chance of winning the general election. In fact, in those circles, they are likely to sit this one out in the fall unless they have one of their American Taliban candidates down the ticket.

McCain has to either somehow tap into that base by picking a wingnut running mate, or has to hope that some big event happens that lets him exploit the fear of Americnas the way Rove/Bush did it in 2004.

Honestly, I think he is too principled to do either of those things. I'd really like to see someone come out of this who can unite the nation and undo the divisive politics that have really become dominant since 2000.

Reductio ad absurdum
Ok, so we are not arguing here, just pointing out different points of view. But what you have done is taken the grain of the truth and exploded it into the absurd that nobody could agree with except for the absolute fringe cases.

1) Most republicans want the government out of their lives, period. Minimal interaction is what is desired. However, it does not change the fact that we are a society and are bound by the rules and laws of that society. Sometimes there is a clash between what a small group wants and that desire goes against the will of the greater society. Legislating morality does not work like I had said before in this thread. Most of us do not want to see that. However, it is also a liberal catch fraze anytime somebody is denied doing something that they think they should be able to do.
The gay marriage thing is about recognition of a chosen lifestyle and the recognition of two other 'sexes' (maybe more if you count transgenders). It is not about the right to get married. Gays can enter into legal and binding contracts and powers of attorney that mimics everything common to marriage except for the small differences in tax tables. It is a slippery slope. Gays have every single right and privilege as the rest of us. There is no difference.

Drugs are an issue because of their destructive nature. If you are talking about pot, well, it is debatable. Alcohol can be destructive to some, but for most it is safe and reasonable. All other drugs are horribly destructive. The main point is that right now they are against the law because the greater society has deemed them as undesirable. We can debate all day long if legalization of the drugs would fix more problems than keeping them illegal does.

Abortion should not be a political issue in my opinion, but that is a tough one. Personally, I am mostly opposed to it although there are cases where it is still justified. However, just like the liberals, there are fringes of the conservatives that are extreme. They are the ones that drive this abortion issue. I wish the republicans would just ignore it.

The liberal Democrats do not want the government out of people's lives, they want government to control everything. They don't think the rest of us have the intelligence to take responsibility for our own lives. The government is their religion and they are as fervent about that as the Taliban you equate with the religious right here in America (which is really, horribly unfair and off the mark, btw). Religion (and no, I am not) provides that "father figure" that everybody needs. Extreme liberals do not have that sense. They use government as a substitute. To me, that is far more frightening than JW coming to my door to try and save me.

The wiretap thing is also blown out of proportion. There are checks and balances. There is still need for some probable cause. Random searches are most likely fruitless and a waste of money, but lets say they did try and listen in on everybody, do you really think anybody would be able to pick up on the fact that you just bought a bag of pot out of the trillions of phone calls every day? Get real. Unless you are doing something devious that triggers some alarm somewhere, you are not going to be singled out. Again, this is one of those liberal catch phrases designed to turn people against law enforcement. I want my privacy too. I don't want the government listening and recording everything I do. But I also have nothing to hide so it wouldn't be a problem for me. Spend some time in the military and you might find out that you have a heck of a lot less privacy and fewer rights than felony prisoners. We make that sacrifice to keep you safe. If the FBI monitors somebody under these so called "wiretap" operations, then so be it. It is a price we all have to pay to maintain our stability and to catch and punish the bad guys. The far left wants their freedom, but they are very unwilling to make any sacrifices to get it. If these procedures start to be abused by and overzealous agent, you can bet they will be stopped and punished as well.


True conservatives believe in those three tenants that I posted earlier. This means a minimal level of government but it also means that to hold together as a society, we must have government and we must have law. It won't be perfect and it won't satisfy everybody, especially those on the fringes and those with an agenda, but it will satisfy the majority to a greater degree.

I really don't see how anybody on one had can say the Dems want to stay out of our private lives on one hand, yet that it is perfectly acceptable for them to take my money and give it to some slacker who can't keep job.

Most of we conservatives really don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home as long as you are not hurting anybody else and as long as you keep it to yourself.

And finally, we could point to some of the liberal fringe who advocate such things as sexual interaction with children is OK and good for the child, that Al Sharpton is not a bigot, guns are evil and should be banned, that no tree should ever be cut down (even to make the cardboard protest signs used by tree huggers blocking logging roads), etc. There are plenty of fringe cases out there. It is your responsibility to critically analyze those assertions and come to an informed position.

I am not attacking you btw. I am just questioning your assertions.

[BenM]

This thread has been very informative to me as well. This will be my first time voting in a presidential election, and the current info here has questioned which political party I want to affiliate myself with. Thanks guys.

[Sean]

This thread is so so SO awesome!

I'd almost tell anyone that wants to learn to read it, some great information in here.

Couple things to add - basically just agreeing here...I can't believe Obama said that. Raising the min. wage is a way to disaster. AH!

Anyway, I just wanna keep reading, this is great stuff! I almost need to go thru and make cliff notes, so I can remember this stuff when my liberal retarded friends want to get on my case for not wanting Obama or some retarded crap like that. heh

[Dave]

Part of the problem with our society is that people are so inconsistent in their political beliefs.

The "conservative" Republicans want government out of business, but want to legislate everyone's individual morality. (Abortion, drugs, gay marriage). And they want us to give up our individual liberties to boot. (No warrant wiretaps, FBI to scour our emails, etc etc). And don't get me started on the "pro-lifers" who are for the death penalty.

The "liberal" Democrats want government out of people's personal lives, but want it to provide all of the social benefits. (Income security, healthcare, etc).

Our political parties are so inherently fucked up in this way it is a wonder we are not worse off.

The Republican primaries have been a great example of this. Look at the McCain-Huckabee contrast. Granted, McCain is not the most conservative guy in any respect, but he has never been a darling of the Bible thumping crowd. Those people will continue to throw their votes at Huckabee despite the fact that he cannot win the nomination and would have zero chance of winning the general election. In fact, in those circles, they are likely to sit this one out in the fall unless they have one of their American Taliban candidates down the ticket.

McCain has to either somehow tap into that base by picking a wingnut running mate, or has to hope that some big event happens that lets him exploit the fear of Americnas the way Rove/Bush did it in 2004.

Honestly, I think he is too principled to do either of those things. I'd really like to see someone come out of this who can unite the nation and undo the divisive politics that have really become dominant since 2000.

[LINUS]

I'd said something about rich getting better care...

Better someone does than it not exist. Without $$ to go above and beyond, there wouldn't be real incentive for R&D and new procedures.

Look at Magic Johnson, very alive and well. Someday maybe everyone with HIV/AIDS will be able to afford the cocktail of drugs he is on.

....and I hope you saw where that's exactly my point too.

We'd be in a world of hurt if you had Union doctors......Oh, wait - that's socialized healthcare. We can see how it works or doesn't right there.

We all know that socializing anything kills the desire to exceed the previous guy. Socialized trade labor (Unions) prove it - you only are expected to do whatever the jobsite slackmonkey does. Personal initiative is faaar from rewarded, nearly frowned on.

Don't get me wrong - Unions are a very helpful tool if it was restructured as a bargaining collective for benefits & payscale, BUT set up a sliding scale for talent & initiative. That scale means money in case anyone doesn't get where that was going. Do that & get the Unions behind the ideal that their members would benefit in the pocketbook - We could once again get really competetive in the marketplace.

We as a nation need to stay competative & keep our "money driven standard" instead of just rolling over & basically commiting national suicide by socializing anything. I'm just of the opinion that if we metaphorically "just go lay down on a cot & wait our turn" (my idea of socialized anything) - then you become just as impotent as any country before us who has done the same thing.

We are rooted as a country under the ideal that you come, you act, you try. You don't settle for wherever you were from, but you need to conform to the new country's ideals. Don't just come here & look for the closest warm cot, get up & go get what you want.

Socialized countries automatically are part of the economical Special Olympics in my book.

It's not just economic situations - nature does the same thing too. Good DNA is rewarded with hot chicks & sucess in their world too.

[Hallen]

People like Ron Paul don't get into Presidential campaigns to win. They get into them to see if they can get some of their policies and ideas implemented by whoever does win. Props to the guy for having the fortitude to go for it.

There is plenty wrong with our current economic systems. They should be scrutinized. It is another thing entirely to stick your wrench into the moving gears hoping to fix something but not knowing exactly what will happen when that wrench hits a gear though.

[Dave]

Not if you vote for some one that wants to remove the government from business.

As opposed to government being an arm of and ATM for it, as it is now?

Oh ya, you all though Ron Paul was crazy. Now you are singing his songs.

I met Dr. Paul in 2003 and had the chance to talk with him a bit. He's not crazy. Mind you, when I looked around the room to see the folks who also were there to hear him speak, I kind of wondered . . . :D

[DarkWing6]

Ron Paul wasn't entirely crazy, he just backed some things that will never be adopted again (Goldstandard, for instance). He seems crazy libertarian, which is something that I don't have a personal problem with (entirely).

Not that we should start discussing Ron Paul, but he represented the Constitution and a president that would actually care about our economy enough to do things like remove the government from it. None of his ideas on anything were as out there and damaging to America as Obama's plans like universal health care and these economic "plans" he has.

[uofom3]

The National Cancer Institute (NCI), a component of the National Institutes of Health, is the Nation’s principal agency for cancer research. As a Federal Government research agency, the Institute receives its funds from the U.S. Congress...

The NCI’s total budget for Fiscal Year 2005 was $4.83 billion. The NCI will invest an estimated $4.79 billion during Fiscal Year 2006. The budget is expected to decrease to $4.75 billion in Fiscal Year 2007. Other Federal agencies, state and local governments, voluntary organizations, industry, and private institutions also spend a substantial amount of money on cancer-related research and services.

It compared this European funding to US spending for the same period and found that collectively, the European countries spent EUR 1.43 billion on public cancer research compared to EUR 3.6 billion spent by the US National Cancer Institute. This amounted to EUR 2.56 per person, compared with EUR 17.63 per person in the US. As a percentage of GDP, the US spent four times as much as was the average in Europe.

Heeter is a great wing man.

Spend more then I guess (wait... did I just say that?). Many forms of cancer are becomming manageable, detection is getting better, and life expectancy is increasing... maybe this is a government spending program that actually WORKS. And again... what's 10 billion dollars in a 13.5 trillion dollar spending program? Healthcare is more than a 2 trillion dollar industry cost-wise to the consumers of healthcare... I wonder what portion of that is related to cancer (both directly and indirectly)?

I am getting far-a-field here... The point being that there are better things to spend money on then an ultimately shitty healthcare system.

[rwh11385]

The National Cancer Institute (NCI), a component of the National Institutes of Health, is the Nation’s principal agency for cancer research. As a Federal Government research agency, the Institute receives its funds from the U.S. Congress...

The NCI’s total budget for Fiscal Year 2005 was $4.83 billion. The NCI will invest an estimated $4.79 billion during Fiscal Year 2006. The budget is expected to decrease to $4.75 billion in Fiscal Year 2007. Other Federal agencies, state and local governments, voluntary organizations, industry, and private institutions also spend a substantial amount of money on cancer-related research and services.

It compared this European funding to US spending for the same period and found that collectively, the European countries spent EUR 1.43 billion on public cancer research compared to EUR 3.6 billion spent by the US National Cancer Institute. This amounted to EUR 2.56 per person, compared with EUR 17.63 per person in the US. As a percentage of GDP, the US spent four times as much as was the average in Europe.

[uofom3]

Better someone does than it not exist. Without $$ to go above and beyond, there wouldn't be real incentive for R&D and new procedures.

Look at Magic Johnson, very alive and well. Someday maybe everyone with HIV/AIDS will be able to afford the cocktail of drugs he is on.

exactly.

You know how the government could save a load of cash that gets dumped into the healthcare industry? Spend about 5 billion dollars on cancer research. The long term net savings of curing the disease would be so large we can't even fathom (particularly as the baby boom generation ages). I don't know the exact figures of what is spent on this annually (I will research this before making further assertions) but when you look at what you net down for the future - a few billlion would be a drop in the proverbial bucket. I think I read somewhere a few years back that for X billion - they could cure cancer within 10 years.

This is no different than companies mandating no tobacco use, or exercise regeims for it's employees. They do it as preventative cost maintenance, and offer programs to help get people off smoking and loose weight. If the government wants to invest in our healthcare future - start with cancer; not a socialized healthcare system to when little timmy has a runny nose he can go get told to rest and take advil for his fever on the taxpayers nickle.

[rwh11385]

Yes, the rich get better care.

Better someone does than it not exist. Without $$ to go above and beyond, there wouldn't be real incentive for R&D and new procedures.

Look at Magic Johnson, very alive and well. Someday maybe everyone with HIV/AIDS will be able to afford the cocktail of drugs he is on.